Radiomics for differentiating tumor deposits from lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer

doi:10.3748/wjg.v28.i29.3960

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 28, Issue 29

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Supplementary Materials of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (4885)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-4) series, Tables (1-4) series.

Item

Count

PDF

269

WORD

HTML

2358

Figures (1-4)

476

Tables (1-4)

337

Sum=3506

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

416

Download

963

Sum=1379

Aug 7, 2022 (publication date) through Mar 2, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (14)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Retrospective Study

World J Gastroenterol. Aug 7, 2022; 28(29): 3960-3970
Published online Aug 7, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i29.3960

Table 1 Baseline and clinical characteristics of the included patients

Characteristics	TDs⁺LNM^-(n = 89)	LNM⁺TDs^– (n = 115)	P value	Training set (n = 163)	Validation set (n = 41)	P value
Age (mean ± SD, yr)	59 ± 12	61 ± 12	0.268	60 ± 12	60 ± 11	0.965
Gender (man/woman)	49/40	63/52	0.969	94/69	18/23	0.113
Location (middle-low/high)	65/24	74/41	0.187	107/56	32/9	0.128
Neoadjuvant therapy (+/-)	34/55	43/72	0.906	62/101	15/26	0.864
CEA (+/-) (positive ≥ 5 ng/mL)	42/47	43/72	0.159	75/88	10/31	0.012
CA19-9 (+/-) (positive ≥ 30 U/mL)	23/66	18/97	0.072	34/129	7/34	0.589
CA125 (+/-) (positive ≥ 24 U/mL)	13/76	14/101	0.611	21/142	6/35	0.767
pT stage (T1/T2/T3/T4)	0/9/70/10	4/12/93/6	0.063	4/17/127/15	0/4/36/1	0.894
pN stage (1a/1b/1c/2a/2b)	0/0/89/0/0	52/39/0/15/9	< 0.001	37/33/71/13/9	15/6/18/2/0	0.115
Histologic EMVI (+/-)	33/56	16/99	< 0.001	41/122	8/33	0.450
Histologic grade (G1/G2/G3)	1/63/25	0/76/39	0.299	0/113/50	1/26/14	0.901
Peritumoral nodule
Shape (irregular/regular)	12/77	2/113	0.003	11/152	3/38	0.898
Spiculation (+/-)	7/82	2/113	0.077	7/156	2/39	0.871
Size (mm²) (median)	72.7	41.2	< 0.001	54	43	0.886
CT value (HU)	61 ± 22	65 ± 23	0.258	64 ± 23	63 ± 23	0.858
Rad-score 1 (median)	0.71	0.39	< 0.001	0.44	0.71	0.002
Rad-score 2 (median)	0.89	0.13	< 0.001	0.39	0.62	0.561

Rad-score 1: Rad-score of the main tumor; Rad-score 2: Rad-score of the largest peritumoral nodule; CT: Computed tomography; TDs: Tumor deposits; LNM: Lymph node metastasis; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CA125: Carbohydrate antigen 125; pT stage: Pathological T stage; pN stage: Pathological N stage; EMVI: Extramural vascular invasion.

Table 2 Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis

Variables	Univariate		Multivariate
	OR	P value	OR	P value
Age	0.995	0.693	-	-
Gender	0.820	0.534	-	-
Location	0.819	0.282	-	-
CEA	1.546	0.171	-	-
CA19-9	1.613	0.217	-	-
CA125	1.503	0.384	-	-
Peritumoral nodule
Shape	14.918	0.011	0.915	0.948
Spiculated (+/-)	8.400	0.051	-	-
Size (mm²)	1.009	0.001	0.999	0.314
CT value (HU)	0.994	0.364	-	-
Rad-score 1	2.946	< 0.001	3.267	< 0.001
Rad-score 2	11.979	< 0.001	14.396	< 0.001

Rad-score 1: Rad-score of the main tumor; Rad-score 2: Rad-score of the largest peritumoral nodule; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CA125: Carbohydrate antigen 125; CT: Computed tomography; OR: Odds ratio.

Table 3 Comparisons of the models in the training, validation, and mixed groups

	Training set				Validation set				Mixed group
	AUC	SEN	SPE	P value	AUC	SEN	SPE	P value	SEN	SPE	Accuracy
Rad-score 1	0.768 (95%CI: 0.695-0.830)	66.2%	70.7%	< 0.001	0.700 (95%CI: 0.537-0.833)	77.8%	47.8%	0.032	-	-	-
Combined model	0.955 (95%CI: 0.910-0.981)	83.1%	88.0%	0.134	0.930 (95%CI: 0.805-0.986)	94.4%	82.6%	0.594	66.6%	73.3%	70.0%
Rad-score 2	0.940 (95%CI: 0.892-0.971)	83.1%	84.8%		0.918 (95%CI: 0.789-0.981)	83.3%	82.6%		73.3%	66.6%	70.0%

The mixed group consisted of 15 double-positive (TDs⁺LNM⁺) and 15 single-positive (11 TDs⁺LNM^- and 4 LNM⁺TDs^-) patients. P value: compared with Rad-score 2 by DeLong’s test. Rad-score 1: Rad-score of the main tumor; Rad-score 2: Rad-score of the largest peritumoral nodule; TDs: Tumor deposits; LNM: Lymph node metastasis; AUC: Area under the curve; SEN: Sensitivity; SPE: Specificity.

Table 4 Subgroup analyses of the models in single-positive patients

	Rad-score 1			Rad-score 2			P value
Subgroups	AUC	SEN (%)	SPE (%)	AUC	SEN (%)	SPE (%)
nCRT
With (n = 77)	0.740 (95%CI: 0.628-0.833)	73.5%	74.4%	0.897 (95%CI: 0.806-0.954)	73.5%	90.7%	0.014
Without (n = 127)	0.753 (95%CI: 0.668-0.825)	60%	86.1%	0.957 (95%CI: 0.905-0.985)	89.1%	93.1%	< 0.001
Location
Mid-low (n = 139)	0.782 (95%CI: 0.704-0.848)	75.4%	62.2%	0.931 (95%CI: 0.875-0.967)	86.2%	82.4%	< 0.001
High (n = 65)	0.643 (95%CI: 0.515-0.758)	54.2%	73.2%	0.941 (95%CI: 0.853-0.984)	83.3%	85.4%	< 0.001
Number of TDs	1-2 (n = 50)	≥ 3 (n = 39)	P = 0.838	1-2 (n = 50)	≥ 3 (n = 39)	P = 0.309
Value	0.64 ± 0.24	0.65 ± 0.22	P = 0.838	0.83 ± 0.22	0.77 ± 0.26	P = 0.309

Rad-score 1: Rad-score of the main tumor; Rad-score 2: Rad-score of the largest peritumoral nodule; TDs: Tumor deposits; AUC: Area under the curve; SEN: Sensitivity; SPE: Specificity; nCRT: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Citation: Zhang YC, Li M, Jin YM, Xu JX, Huang CC, Song B. Radiomics for differentiating tumor deposits from lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28(29): 3960-3970
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v28/i29/3960.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v28.i29.3960