Advertisement

Prognostic value of computed tomography radiomics features in patients with gastric cancer following curative resection

  • Wuchao Li
  • Liwen Zhang
  • Chong Tian
  • Hui Song
  • Mengjie Fang
  • Chaoen Hu
  • Yali Zang
  • Ying Cao
  • Shiyuan Dai
  • Fang Wang
  • Di Dong
  • Rongpin Wang
  • Jie Tian
Gastrointestinal
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

The present study aimed to investigate the clinical prognostic significance of radiomics signature (R-signature) in patients with gastric cancer who had undergone radical resection.

Methods

A total of 181 patients with gastric cancer who had undergone radical resection were enrolled in this retrospective study. The association between the R-signature and overall survival (OS) was assessed in the primary cohort and verified in the validation cohort. Furthermore, the performance of a radiomics nomogram integrating the R-signature and significant clinicopathological risk factors was evaluated.

Results

The R-signature, which consisted of six imaging features, stratified patients with gastric cancer who had undergone radical resection into two prognostic risk groups in both cohorts. The radiomics nomogram incorporating R-signature and significant clinicopathological risk factors (T stage, N stage, and differentiation) exhibited significant prognostic superiority over clinical nomogram and R-signature alone (Harrell concordance index, 0.82 vs 0.71 and 0.82 vs 0.74, respectively, p < 0.001 in both analyses). All calibration curves showed remarkable consistency between predicted and actual survival, and decision curve analysis verified the usefulness of the radiomics nomogram for clinical practice.

Conclusions

The R-signature could be used to stratify patients with gastric cancer following radical resection into high- and low-risk groups. Furthermore, the radiomics nomogram provided better predictive accuracy than other predictive models and might aid clinicians with therapeutic decision-making and patient counseling.

Key Points

Radiomics can stratify the gastric cancer patients following radical resection into high- and low-risk groups.

Radiomics can improve the prognostic value of TNM staging system.

Radiomics may facilitate personalized treatment of gastric cancer patients.

Keywords

Multidetector computed tomography Stomach neoplasms Survival 

Abbreviations

AIC

Akaike information criterion

CT

Computed tomography

HR

Hazard ratio

ICCs

Interclass correlation coefficients

LASSO

Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator

OS

Overall survival

R-scores

Radiomics scores

R-signature

Radiomics signature

ROI

Region of interest

TNM

Tumor-node-metastasis

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 81360565, 61661010, 81227901, 81771924, 81501616, 61231004, 81671851, and 81527805), the National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFA0205200, 2017YFC1308700, 2017YFC1309100), the Science and Technology Service Network Initiative of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (KFJ-SW-STS-160), the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission (Z161100002616022), the Guizhou Provincial Department of Science and Technology and Guizhou Provincial People’s Hospital United Foundation (QKHLHZ[2015]7115), the Guizhou Provincial People’s Hospital Doctoral Foundation (GZSYBS[2015]02), the Science and Technology Foundation of Guizhou Province (QKHJC[2016]1096), the Technology and Innovation Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars (QRXMZZ(2016)03), and the Guizhou Science and Technology Department Key Project (QKF[2017]25).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jie Tian.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2018_5861_MOESM1_ESM.docx (7.7 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 7872 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A et al (2015) The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol 1:505–527CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tegels JJ, De Maat MF, Hulsewé KW, Hoofwijk AG, Stoot JH (2014) Improving the outcomes in gastric cancer surgery. World J Gastroenterol 20:13692–13704CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bang YJ, Kim YW, Yang HK et al (2012) Adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): a phase 3 open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379:315–321Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jiang Y, Zhang Q, Hu Y et al (2016) ImmunoScore signature: a prognostic and predictive tool in gastric cancer. Ann Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002116 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bando E, Makuuchi R, Tokunaga M, Tanizawa Y, Kawamura T, Terashima M (2017) Impact of clinical tumor-node-metastasis staging on survival in gastric carcinoma patients receiving surgery. Gastric Cancer 20:448–456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim YI (2014) Is retrieval of at least 15 lymph nodes sufficient recommendation in early gastric cancer? Ann Surg Treat Res 87:180–184CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fridman WH, Mlecnik B, Bindea G, Pagès F, Galon J (2011) Immunosurveillance in human non-viral cancers. Curr Opin Immunol 23:272–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sohn BH, Hwang JE, Jang HJ et al (2017) Clinical significance of four molecular subtypes of gastric cancer identified by The Cancer Genome Atlas Project. Clin Cancer Res 23:4441–4449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liang P, Ren XC, Gao JB, Chen KS, Xu X (2017) Iodine concentration in spectral CT: assessment of prognostic determinants in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol ​​209:1033–1038CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Cutsem E, Sagaert X, Topal B, Haustermans K, Prenen H (2016) Gastric cancer. Lancet 388:2654–2664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Komori M, Asayama Y, Fujita N et al (2013) Extent of arterial tumor enhancement measured with preoperative MDCT gastrography is a prognostic factor in advanced gastric cancer after curative resection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W253–W261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kumar V, Gu Y, Basu S et al (2012) Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging 30:1234–1248CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Verma V, Simone CB 2nd, Krishnan S, Lin SH, Yang J, Hahn SM (2017) The rise of radiomics and implications for oncologic management. J Natl Cancer Inst 109:djx055Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R et al (2012) Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 48:441–446CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang Y, Liu Z, He L et al (2016) Radiomics signature: a potential biomarker for the prediction of disease-free survival in early-stage (I or II) non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 281:947–957CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grossmann P, Narayan V, Chang K et al (2017) Quantitative imaging biomarkers for risk stratification of patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Neuro Oncol.  https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nox092 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Connor JP (2017) Radiomics: rethinking the role of clinical imaging. Elife 6:e30563CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giganti F, Antunes S, Salerno A et al (2017) Gastric cancer: texture analysis from multidetector computed tomography as a potential preoperative prognostic biomarker. Eur Radiol 27:1831–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu S, Liu S, Ji C et al (2017) Application of CT texture analysis in predicting histopathological characteristics of gastric cancers. Eur Radiol 27:4951–4959CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19:231–240PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 58:267–288Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bozdogan H (1987) Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): the general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika 52:345–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hernán MA (2010) The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology 21:13–15CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morris LG, Riaz N, Desrichard A et al (2016) Pan-cancer analysis of intratumor heterogeneity as a prognostic determinant of survival. Oncotarget 7:10051PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sala E, Mema E, Himoto Y et al (2017) Unravelling tumour heterogeneity using next-generation imaging: radiomics, radiogenomics, and habitat imaging. Clin Radiol 72:3–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang J, Fujimoto J, Zhang J et al (2014) Intratumor heterogeneity in localized lung adenocarcinomas delineated by multiregion sequencing. Science 346:256–259CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rutman AM, Kuo MD (2009) Radiogenomics: creating a link between molecular diagnostics and diagnostic imaging. Eur J Radiol 70:232–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harrell F (2001) Regression modeling strategies. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cao Y, Liu H, Zhang H et al (2017) CXC chemokine receptor 1 predicts postoperative prognosis and chemotherapeutic benefits for TNM II and III resectable gastric cancer patients. Oncotarget 8:20328PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nishida T (2012) Adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy. Lancet 379:291–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyGuizhou Provincial People’s HospitalGuiyangChina
  2. 2.CAS Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Institute of AutomationChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Guizhou Provincial Key Laboratory of Intelligent Medical Image Analysis and Precision DiagnosisGuizhou Provincial People’s HospitalGuiyangChina
  4. 4.School of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  5. 5.Department of PathologyGuizhou Provincial People’s HospitalGuiyangChina
  6. 6.Department of Medical Records and StatisticsGuizhou Provincial People’s HospitalGuiyangChina
  7. 7.Department of General SurgeryGuizhou Provincial People’s HospitalGuiyangChina
  8. 8.Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision MedicineBeihang UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations