4.6 Article

Risk stratification and prognostic value of multi-modal MRI-based radiomics for extranodal nasal-type NK/T-cell lymphoma

Journal

BMC CANCER
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-10557-3

Keywords

Extranodal nasal-type NK; T-cell lymphoma; Multi-modal magnetic resonance imaging; Radiomics; Prognosis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to assess the value of multi-modal MRI-based radiomics for predicting overall survival in patients with ENKTCL. Two distinct types of MRI radiomics signatures were identified, and the NRI-M model showed better performance in prognostication compared to traditional risk indices.
BackgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performs well in the locoregional assessment of extranodal nasal-type NK/T-cell lymphoma (ENKTCL). It's important to assess the value of multi-modal MRI-based radiomics for estimating overall survival (OS) in patients with ENKTCL.MethodsPatients with ENKTCL in a prospectively cohort were systemically reviewed and all the pretreatment MRI were acquisitioned. An unsupervised spectral clustering method was used to identify risk groups of patients and radiomic features. A nomogram-revised risk index (NRI) plus MRI radiomics signature (NRI-M) was developed, and compared with the NRI.ResultsThe 2 distinct type I and II groups of the MRI radiomics signatures were identified. The 5-year OS rates between the type I and type II groups were 87.2% versus 67.3% (P = 0.002) in all patients, and 88.8% versus 69.2% (P = 0.003) in early-stage patients. The discrimination and calibration of the NRI-M for OS prediction demonstrated a better performance than that of either MRI radiomics or NRI, with a mean area under curve (AUC) of 0.748 and 0.717 for predicting the 5-year OS in all-stages and early-stage patients.ConclusionsThe NRI-M model has good performance for predicting the prognosis of ENKTCL and may help design clinical trials and improve clinical decision making.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available