Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Apr:133:205-212.
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.10.033. Epub 2018 Nov 10.

External validation of a prognostic model incorporating quantitative PET image features in oesophageal cancer

Affiliations

External validation of a prognostic model incorporating quantitative PET image features in oesophageal cancer

Kieran G Foley et al. Radiother Oncol. 2019 Apr.

Abstract

Aim: Enhanced prognostic models are required to improve risk stratification of patients with oesophageal cancer so treatment decisions can be optimised. The primary aim was to externally validate a published prognostic model incorporating PET image features. Transferability of the model was compared using only clinical variables.

Methods: This was a Transparent Reporting of a multivariate prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) type 3 study. The model was validated against patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy according to the Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS) trial regimen using pre- and post-harmonised image features. The Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank significance tests assessed risk strata discrimination. A Cox proportional hazards model assessed model calibration. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS).

Results: Between 2010 and 2015, 449 patients were included in the development (n = 302), internal validation (n = 101) and external validation (n = 46) cohorts. No statistically significant difference in OS between patient quartiles was demonstrated in prognostic models incorporating PET image features (X2 = 1.42, df = 3, p = 0.70) or exclusively clinical variables (age, disease stage and treatment; X2 = 1.19, df = 3, p = 0.75). The calibration slope β of both models was not significantly different from unity (p = 0.29 and 0.29, respectively). Risk groups defined using only clinical variables suggested differences in OS, although these were not statistically significant (X2 = 0.71, df = 2, p = 0.70).

Conclusion: The prognostic model did not enable significant discrimination between the validation risk groups, but a second model with exclusively clinical variables suggested some transferable prognostic ability. PET harmonisation did not significantly change the results of model validation.

Keywords: Oesophageal cancer; Positron-emission tomography; Prognosis; Radiomics; Survival.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources