Radiomics based on machine learning algorithms could predict prognosis and postoperative chemotherapy benefits of patients with gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study.
Gastric cancer (GC)
computed tomography (CT)
machine learning algorithms
postoperative chemotherapy
radiomics risk score (RRS)
Journal
Journal of gastrointestinal oncology
ISSN: 2078-6891
Titre abrégé: J Gastrointest Oncol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101557751
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Oct 2023
31 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
27
07
2023
accepted:
20
10
2023
medline:
16
11
2023
pubmed:
16
11
2023
entrez:
16
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Traditional clinical characteristics have certain limitations in evaluating cancer prognosis. The radiomics features provide information on tumor morphology, tissue texture, and hemodynamics, which can accurately reflect personalized predictions. This study investigated the clinical value of radiomics features on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) images in predicting prognosis and postoperative chemotherapy benefits for patients with gastric cancer (GC). For this study, 171 GC patients who underwent radical gastrectomy and pathology confirmation of the malignancy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University were retrospectively enrolled. The general information, pathological characteristics, and postoperative chemotherapy information were collected. Patients were also monitored through telephone interviews or outpatient treatment. GC patients were randomly divided into the developing cohort (n=120) and validation cohort (n=51). The intra-tumor areas of interest inside the tumors were delineated, and 1,218 radiomics features were extracted. The optimal radiomics risk score (RRS) was constructed using 8 machine learning algorithms and 29 algorithm combinations. Furthermore, a radiomics nomogram that included clinicopathological characteristics was constructed and validated through univariate and multivariate Cox analyses. Eleven prognosis-related features were selected, and an RRS was constructed. Kaplan-Meier curve analysis showed that the RRS had a high prognostic ability in the developing and validation cohorts (log-rank P<0.01). The RRS was higher in patients with a larger tumor size (≥3 cm), higher Charlson score (≥2), and higher clinical stage (Stages III and IV) (all P<0.001). Furthermore, GC patients with a higher RRS significantly benefited from postoperative chemotherapy. The results of univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses demonstrated that the RRS was an independent risk factor for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (P<0.001). A visual nomogram was established based on the significant factors in multivariate Cox analysis (P<0.05). The C-index was 0.835 (0.793-0.877) for OS and 0.733 (0.677-0.789) for DFS in the developing cohort. The calibration curve also showed that the nomogram had good agreement. A nomogram that combines the RRS and clinicopathological characteristics could serve as a novel noninvasive preoperative prediction model with the potential to accurately predict the prognosis and chemotherapy benefits of GC patients.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Traditional clinical characteristics have certain limitations in evaluating cancer prognosis. The radiomics features provide information on tumor morphology, tissue texture, and hemodynamics, which can accurately reflect personalized predictions. This study investigated the clinical value of radiomics features on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) images in predicting prognosis and postoperative chemotherapy benefits for patients with gastric cancer (GC).
Methods
UNASSIGNED
For this study, 171 GC patients who underwent radical gastrectomy and pathology confirmation of the malignancy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University were retrospectively enrolled. The general information, pathological characteristics, and postoperative chemotherapy information were collected. Patients were also monitored through telephone interviews or outpatient treatment. GC patients were randomly divided into the developing cohort (n=120) and validation cohort (n=51). The intra-tumor areas of interest inside the tumors were delineated, and 1,218 radiomics features were extracted. The optimal radiomics risk score (RRS) was constructed using 8 machine learning algorithms and 29 algorithm combinations. Furthermore, a radiomics nomogram that included clinicopathological characteristics was constructed and validated through univariate and multivariate Cox analyses.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Eleven prognosis-related features were selected, and an RRS was constructed. Kaplan-Meier curve analysis showed that the RRS had a high prognostic ability in the developing and validation cohorts (log-rank P<0.01). The RRS was higher in patients with a larger tumor size (≥3 cm), higher Charlson score (≥2), and higher clinical stage (Stages III and IV) (all P<0.001). Furthermore, GC patients with a higher RRS significantly benefited from postoperative chemotherapy. The results of univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses demonstrated that the RRS was an independent risk factor for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (P<0.001). A visual nomogram was established based on the significant factors in multivariate Cox analysis (P<0.05). The C-index was 0.835 (0.793-0.877) for OS and 0.733 (0.677-0.789) for DFS in the developing cohort. The calibration curve also showed that the nomogram had good agreement.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
A nomogram that combines the RRS and clinicopathological characteristics could serve as a novel noninvasive preoperative prediction model with the potential to accurately predict the prognosis and chemotherapy benefits of GC patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37969820
doi: 10.21037/jgo-23-627
pii: jgo-14-05-2048
pmc: PMC10643584
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2048-2063Informations de copyright
2023 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-23-627/coif). ML reports funding support from the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (Grant No. LY20H160015) and the Project of Zhejiang Provincial Department of Education (Grant No. Y202147047). EDN received financial support from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP – 2014/26897-0). QD reports funding from the Zhejiang Provincial Health Department Medical Support Discipline-Nutrition (Grant No. 11-ZC24), the Special Fund of Zhejiang Upper Gastrointestinal Tumor Diagnosis and Treatment Technology Research Center (Grant No. jbzx-202006), the Fund of the Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition of Chinese Medical Association (Grant No. Z-2017-24-2211), the National Key Clinical Specialty (General Surgery), the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Gastric Cancer. 2011 Jun;14(2):113-23
pubmed: 21573742
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Oct;14(10):1286-1312
pubmed: 27697982
Eur Radiol. 2021 Jul;31(7):4576-4586
pubmed: 33447862
Front Oncol. 2021 Aug 09;11:682456
pubmed: 34434892
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Sep 1;3(9):e2015927
pubmed: 32910196
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 May 1;11(5):531-46
pubmed: 23667204
JAMA Surg. 2017 Jul 19;152(7):e171087
pubmed: 28538950
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2023 Jun 30;14(3):1250-1258
pubmed: 37435220
Eur J Cancer. 2012 Mar;48(4):441-6
pubmed: 22257792
Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 21;11(1):1879
pubmed: 33479398
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Apr;145:13-20
pubmed: 31869677
Nat Commun. 2022 Nov 12;13(1):6903
pubmed: 36371443
Med Phys. 2020 Jun;47(5):e185-e202
pubmed: 32418336
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Nov;15(12):1389-96
pubmed: 25439693
Gastric Cancer. 2017 May;20(3):448-456
pubmed: 27586236
Front Oncol. 2020 Dec 04;10:552270
pubmed: 33425719
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Jun;91:142-147
pubmed: 28629560
Insights Imaging. 2023 May 4;14(1):75
pubmed: 37142815
Radiology. 2016 Feb;278(2):563-77
pubmed: 26579733
Lancet Oncol. 2018 May;19(5):629-638
pubmed: 29567071
Radiology. 2020 May;295(2):328-338
pubmed: 32154773
Eur Radiol. 2023 Apr;33(4):2746-2756
pubmed: 36512039
Breast Cancer Res. 2022 Mar 15;24(1):20
pubmed: 35292076
Eur Radiol. 2022 May;32(5):3207-3219
pubmed: 35066632
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Sep;150:89-96
pubmed: 32531334
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 10;34(23):2728-35
pubmed: 27325864
Nat Commun. 2022 Feb 10;13(1):816
pubmed: 35145098
Radiology. 2022 Feb;302(2):425-434
pubmed: 34726531
Cancer Res. 2017 Nov 1;77(21):e104-e107
pubmed: 29092951
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2023 Jan 1;13(1):224-236
pubmed: 36620140
CA Cancer J Clin. 2023 Jan;73(1):17-48
pubmed: 36633525
EBioMedicine. 2018 Oct;36:171-182
pubmed: 30224313
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):e2028086
pubmed: 33289845
Chin J Cancer Res. 2015 Feb;27(1):2-12
pubmed: 25717220
Cancer Commun (Lond). 2019 Mar 18;39(1):10
pubmed: 30885279
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec;14(12):749-762
pubmed: 28975929
Transl Cancer Res. 2022 Dec;11(12):4326-4337
pubmed: 36644192