Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 547–557 | Cite as

A radiogenomics signature for predicting the clinical outcome of bladder urothelial carcinoma

  • Peng Lin
  • Dong-yue Wen
  • Ling Chen
  • Xin Li
  • Sheng-hua Li
  • Hai-biao Yan
  • Rong-quan He
  • Gang Chen
  • Yun He
  • Hong YangEmail author
Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the integrative value of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), transcriptomics data and clinicopathological data for predicting the survival of bladder urothelial carcinoma (BLCA) patients.

Methods

RNA sequencing data, radiomics features and clinical parameters of 62 BLCA patients were included in the study. Then, prognostic signatures based on radiomics features and gene expression profile were constructed by using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox analysis. A multi-omics nomogram was developed by integrating radiomics, transcriptomics and clinicopathological data. More importantly, radiomics risk score–related genes were identified via weighted correlation network analysis and submitted to functional enrichment analysis.

Results

The radiomics and transcriptomics signatures significantly stratified BLCA patients into high- and low-risk groups in terms of the progression-free interval (PFI). The two risk models remained independent prognostic factors in multivariate analyses after adjusting for clinical parameters. A nomogram was developed and showed an excellent predictive ability for the PFI in BLCA patients. Functional enrichment analysis suggested that the radiomics signature we developed could reflect the angiogenesis status of BLCA patients.

Conclusions

The integrative nomogram incorporated CECT radiomics, transcriptomics and clinical features improved the PFI prediction in BLCA patients and is a feasible and practical reference for oncological precision medicine.

Key Points

Our radiomics and transcriptomics models are proved robust for survival prediction in bladder urothelial carcinoma patients.

A multi-omics nomogram model which integrates radiomics, transcriptomics and clinical features for prediction of progression-free interval in bladder urothelial carcinoma is established.

Molecular functional enrichment analysis is used to reveal the potential molecular function of radiomics signature.

Keywords

Multidetector computed tomography Urinary bladder neoplasms Artificial intelligence Prognosis 

Abbreviations

AUC

Area under the curve

BLCA

Bladder urothelial carcinoma

CECT

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography

HR

Hazard ratio

KEGG

Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes

LASSO

Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator

PFI

Progression-free interval

ROC

Receiver operating characteristic

ROI

The regions of interest

TCGA

The Cancer Genome Atlas

TCIA

The Cancer Imaging Archive

TPM

Trans per million

WGCNA

Weighted gene co-expression network analysis

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the TCGA and TCIA databases for the availability of the data.

Funding

This study has received funding by grants from the Guangxi Science and Technology Program (grant no. GuiKeAB17195020), the Fund of National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. NSFC81260222) and Innovation Project of Guangxi Graduate Education (grant no. YCSW2018104).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hong Yang.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors (Ling Chen) has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because all patients’ data included in this study are publicly and freely available for scientific purposes (The Cancer Genome Atlas Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma [TCGA-BLCA]).

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because all patients’ data included in this study are publicly and freely available for scientific purposes (The Cancer Genome Atlas-Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma [TCGA-BLCA]).

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2019) Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 69:7–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cumberbatch MGK, Jubber I, Black PC et al (2018) Epidemiology of bladder cancer: a systematic review and contemporary update of risk factors in 2018. Eur Urol 74:784–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matuszewski M, Szymanska B, Dlugosz A, Malkiewicz B, Dembowski J, Piwowar A (2018) Preliminary evaluation of the diagnostic usefulness of Uroplakin 2 with an assessment of the antioxidant potential of patients with bladder cancer. Biomed Res Int 2018:8693297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peng C, Hua MY, Li NS et al (2019) A colorimetric immunosensor based on self-linkable dual-nanozyme for ultrasensitive bladder cancer diagnosis and prognosis monitoring. Biosens Bioelectron 126:581–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Kessel KEM, van der Keur KA, Dyrskjot L et al (2018) Molecular markers increase precision of the European Association of Urology non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer progression risk groups. Clin Cancer Res 24:1586–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R et al (2012) Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 48:441–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Limkin EJ, Sun R, Dercle L et al (2017) Promises and challenges for the implementation of computational medical imaging (radiomics) in oncology. Ann Oncol 28:1191–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hosny A, Parmar C, Coroller TP et al (2018) Deep learning for lung cancer prognostication: a retrospective multi-cohort radiomics study. PLoS Med 15:e1002711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 109Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ji GW, Zhu FP, Zhang YD et al (2019) A radiomics approach to predict lymph node metastasis and clinical outcome of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06142-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jiang Y, Sun A, Zhao Y et al (2019) Proteomics identifies new therapeutic targets of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Nature 567:257–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cha KH, Hadjiiski Ph DL, Cohan Md RH et al (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of CT for prediction of bladder cancer treatment response with and without computerized decision support. Acad Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu S, Zheng J, Li Y et al (2018) Development and validation of an MRI-based radiomics signature for the preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in bladder cancer. EBioMedicine 34:76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldman M, Craft B, Hastie M et al (2019) The UCSC Xena platform for public and private cancer genomics data visualization and interpretation. bioRxivGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robertson AG, Kim J, Al-Ahmadie H et al (2018) Comprehensive molecular characterization of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Cell 174:1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clark K, Vendt B, Smith K et al (2013) The cancer imaging archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J Digit Imaging 26:1045–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu J, Lichtenberg T, Hoadley KA et al (2018) An integrated TCGA pan-cancer clinical data resource to drive high-quality survival outcome analytics. Cell 173:400–416 e411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC et al (2006) User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 31:1116–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yushkevich PA, Yang Gao, Gerig G (2016) ITK-SNAP: an interactive tool for semi-automatic segmentation of multi-modality biomedical images. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2016:3342–3345Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2010) Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J Stat Softw 33:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heagerty PJ, Zheng Y (2005) Survival model predictive accuracy and ROC curves. Biometrics 61:92–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schroder MS, Culhane AC, Quackenbush J, Haibe-Kains B (2011) survcomp: an R/Bioconductor package for performance assessment and comparison of survival models. Bioinformatics 27:3206–3208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Langfelder P, Horvath S (2008) WGCNA: an R package for weighted correlation network analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 9:559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yu G, Wang LG, Han Y, He QY (2012) clusterProfiler: an R package for comparing biological themes among gene clusters. OMICS 16:284–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prasanna P, Tiwari P, Madabhushi A (2016) Co-occurrence of Local Anisotropic Gradient Orientations (CoLlAGe): a new radiomics descriptor. Sci Rep 6:37241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dettori L, Semler L (2007) A comparison of wavelet, ridgelet, and curvelet-based texture classification algorithms in computed tomography. Comput Biol Med 37:486–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Artzi M, Bressler I, Ben Bashat D (2019) Differentiation between glioblastoma, brain metastasis and subtypes using radiomics analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ross PL, Gerigk C, Gonen M et al (2002) Comparisons of nomograms and urologists’ predictions in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 20:82–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koutsouleris N, Kambeitz-Ilankovic L, Ruhrmann S et al (2018) Prediction models of functional outcomes for individuals in the clinical high-risk state for psychosis or with recent-onset depression: a multimodal, multisite machine learning analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 75:1156–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Edge SB, Compton CC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1471–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang X, Xu X, Tian Q et al (2017) Radiomics assessment of bladder cancer grade using texture features from diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:1281–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wu S, Zheng J, Li Y et al (2017) A radiomics nomogram for the preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in bladder cancer. Clin Cancer Res 23:6904–6911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liu Q, Diao R, Feng G, Mu X, Li A (2017) Risk score based on three mRNA expression predicts the survival of bladder cancer. Oncotarget 8:61583–61591PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    He RQ, Huang ZG, Li TY et al (2018) RNA-sequencing data reveal a prognostic four-lncRNA-based risk score for bladder urothelial carcinoma: an in silico update. Cell Physiol Biochem 50:1474–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144:646–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen Z, Xu XH, Hu J (2016) Role of pericytes in angiogenesis: focus on cancer angiogenesis and anti-angiogenic therapy. Neoplasma 63:173–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sonpavde G, Bellmunt J (2016) Bladder cancer: angiogenesis as a therapeutic target in urothelial carcinoma. Nat Rev Urol 13:306–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jiang M, Lu HY, Shan XH et al (2018) CT quantitative analysis study for angiogenesis, and degree of ischemic necrosis and glucose metabolite in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 22:4146–4155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cuenod CA, Fournier L, Balvay D, Guinebretiere JM (2006) Tumor angiogenesis: pathophysiology and implications for contrast-enhanced MRI and CT assessment. Abdom Imaging 31:188–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peng Lin
    • 1
  • Dong-yue Wen
    • 1
  • Ling Chen
    • 2
  • Xin Li
    • 2
  • Sheng-hua Li
    • 3
  • Hai-biao Yan
    • 3
  • Rong-quan He
    • 4
  • Gang Chen
    • 5
  • Yun He
    • 1
  • Hong Yang
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Medical UltrasonicsFirst Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical UniversityNanningPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.GE HealthcareShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Department of UrologyFirst Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical UniversityNanningPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Department of Medical OncologyFirst Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical UniversityNanningPeople’s Republic of China
  5. 5.Department of PathologyFirst Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical UniversityNanningPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations