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
. 2024 Feb 12;19(2):e0298111.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298111. eCollection 2024.

Multimodality radiomics for tumor prognosis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Affiliations

Multimodality radiomics for tumor prognosis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Sararas Khongwirotphan et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: The prognosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is challenging due to late-stage identification and frequently undetectable Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA. Incorporating radiomic features, which quantify tumor characteristics from imaging, may enhance prognosis assessment.

Purpose: To investigate the predictive power of radiomic features on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in NPC.

Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of 183 NPC patients treated with chemoradiotherapy from 2010 to 2019 was conducted. All patients were followed for at least three years. The pretreatment CT images with contrast medium, MR images (T1W and T2W), as well as gross tumor volume (GTV) contours, were used to extract radiomic features using PyRadiomics v.2.0. Robust and efficient radiomic features were chosen using the intraclass correlation test and univariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. They were then combined with clinical data including age, gender, tumor stage, and EBV DNA level for prognostic evaluation using Cox proportional hazard regression models with recursive feature elimination (RFE) and were optimized using 20 repetitions of a five-fold cross-validation scheme.

Results: Integrating radiomics with clinical data significantly enhanced the predictive power, yielding a C-index of 0.788 ± 0.066 to 0.848 ± 0.079 for the combined model versus 0.745 ± 0.082 to 0.766 ± 0.083 for clinical data alone (p<0.05). Multimodality radiomics combined with clinical data offered the highest performance. Despite the absence of EBV DNA, radiomics integration significantly improved survival predictions (C-index ranging from 0.770 ± 0.070 to 0.831 ± 0.083 in combined model versus 0.727 ± 0.084 to 0.734 ± 0.088 in clinical model, p<0.05).

Conclusions: The combination of multimodality radiomic features from CT and MR images could offer superior predictive performance for OS, PFS, and DMFS compared to relying on conventional clinical data alone.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Boxplots of C-indices.
(A) overall survival (OS), (B) progression-free survival (PFS), (C) distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in training set and (D) OS, (E) PFS, (F) DMFS in test set of the clinical, combination of clinical and CT-based radiomic, and combination of clinical and CT- and MRI-based radiomics models.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Line plots of C-indices of models with and without Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) value.
(A) overall survival (OS), (B) progression-free survival (PFS), and (C) distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Scatter plots representing the correlation between the risk scores of the combined model.
(A) Overall Survival (OS), (B) Progression-Free Survival (PFS), and (C) Distant Metastasis-Free Survival (DMFS) either with or without Epstein Barr Virus (EBV). The strong correlation in each plot underscores the similar predictive performance of the two models across all three survival outcomes.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al.. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021;71(3):209–49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wei WI, Sham JS. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The Lancet. 2005;365(9476):2041–54. - PubMed
    1. Adham M, Kurniawan AN, Muhtadi AI, Roezin A, Hermani B, Gondhowiardjo S, et al.. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Indonesia: epidemiology, incidence, signs, and symptoms at presentation. Chinese journal of cancer. 2012;31(4):185. doi: 10.5732/cjc.011.10328 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lee AWM, Ma BBY, Ng WT, Chan ATC. Management of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Current Practice and Future Perspective. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015;33(29):3356–64. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.60.9347 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cao Y. EBV based cancer prevention and therapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2017;1(1):10. doi: 10.1038/s41698-017-0018-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed