4.5 Article

A clinical-radiomic model for improved prognostication of surgical candidates with colorectal liver metastases

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 121, Issue 2, Pages 357-364

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.25783

Keywords

colorectal cancer; computed tomography; magnetic resonance imaging; radiomics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objectives Colorectal cancer with liver metastases is potentially curable with surgical resection however clinical prognostic factors can insufficiently stratify patients. This study aims to assess whether radiomic features are prognostic and can inform clinical decision making. Methods This single-site retrospective study included 102 patients who underwent colorectal liver metastases resection with preoperative computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with gadoxetic acid (EOB) and clinical covariates. A lasso-regularized multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was applied to 114 features (10 clinical, 104 radiomic) to determine association with disease-free survival (DFS). A prognostic index was derived using the significant Cox regression coefficients and their corresponding input features and a threshold was determined to classify patients into high- and low-risk groups, and DFS compared using log-rank tests. Results Four covariates were significantly associated with DFS; bilobar disease (hazard ratio [HR]= 1.56; P = .0043), complete pathological response (HR= 0.67; P = .025), minimum pixel value (HR= 1.66; P = .00016), and small area emphasis (HR= 0.62; P = .0013) from the EOB-MRI data. Radiomic CT features were not prognostic. The prognostic index strongly stratified high- and low-risk prognostic groups (HR = 0.31; P = .00068). Conclusion Radiomic MRI features provided meaningful prognostic information above clinical covariates alone. This merits further validation for potential clinical implementation to inform management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available