Prognostic value of computed tomography radiomics features in patients with gastric cancer following curative resection
- 253 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
• 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.
KeywordsMultidetector computed tomography Stomach neoplasms Survival
Akaike information criterion
Interclass correlation coefficients
Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator
Region of interest
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 (QKHLHZ7115), the Guizhou Provincial People’s Hospital Doctoral Foundation (GZSYBS02), the Science and Technology Foundation of Guizhou Province (QKHJC1096), the Technology and Innovation Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars (QRXMZZ(2016)03), and the Guizhou Science and Technology Department Key Project (QKF25).
Compliance with ethical standards
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.
Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.
Institutional review board approval was obtained.
• diagnostic or prognostic study
• performed at one institution
- 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.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
- 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 23:4441–4449Google Scholar
- 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 209:1033–1038Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 20.Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19:231–240Google Scholar
- 21.Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 58:267–288Google Scholar
- 24.Morris LG, Riaz N, Desrichard A et al (2016) Pan-cancer analysis of intratumor heterogeneity as a prognostic determinant of survival. Oncotarget 7:10051Google Scholar
- 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 8:20328Google Scholar