神经母细胞瘤高危组与非高危组解剖影像学特征的分层。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Haoru Wang, Xin Chen, Ling He, Jinhua Cai
{"title":"神经母细胞瘤高危组与非高危组解剖影像学特征的分层。","authors":"Haoru Wang, Xin Chen, Ling He, Jinhua Cai","doi":"10.1177/10732748251315883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compared anatomical imaging features between high-risk and non-high-risk groups in neuroblastoma with at least one image-defined risk factor (IDRF). It also assessed the diagnostic performance of these features in identifying the high-risk group.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of neuroblastoma patients with at least one IDRF was conducted. Imaging features, including estimated tumor volume and IDRFs, were compared between the two groups. The diagnostic performance of these features was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and the areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Additionally, to internally validate their diagnostic performance, the bootstrap resampling method with 1000 bootstrap resamples was employed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 255 patients (185 high-risk cases, 70 non-high-risk cases). Significant differences were found in estimated tumor volume and IDRF number between the high-risk and non-high-risk groups (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The estimated tumor volume and the IDRF number-based cluster were independent risk factors, and their combination achieved an AUC of 0.801 (95% CI: 0.747-0.848) for high-risk group diagnosis, with the average AUC of the 1000 bootstrap samples of 0.800 (95% CI: 0.798-0.802). In abdominal lesions, specific IDRF categories differed between high-risk and non-high-risk groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study reveals anatomical imaging differences between high-risk and non-high-risk groups in neuroblastoma with at least one IDRF.</p>","PeriodicalId":49093,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Control","volume":"32 ","pages":"10732748251315883"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11748161/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stratification of Anatomical Imaging Features Between High-Risk and Non-High-Risk Groups in Neuroblastoma.\",\"authors\":\"Haoru Wang, Xin Chen, Ling He, Jinhua Cai\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10732748251315883\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compared anatomical imaging features between high-risk and non-high-risk groups in neuroblastoma with at least one image-defined risk factor (IDRF). It also assessed the diagnostic performance of these features in identifying the high-risk group.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of neuroblastoma patients with at least one IDRF was conducted. Imaging features, including estimated tumor volume and IDRFs, were compared between the two groups. The diagnostic performance of these features was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and the areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Additionally, to internally validate their diagnostic performance, the bootstrap resampling method with 1000 bootstrap resamples was employed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 255 patients (185 high-risk cases, 70 non-high-risk cases). Significant differences were found in estimated tumor volume and IDRF number between the high-risk and non-high-risk groups (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The estimated tumor volume and the IDRF number-based cluster were independent risk factors, and their combination achieved an AUC of 0.801 (95% CI: 0.747-0.848) for high-risk group diagnosis, with the average AUC of the 1000 bootstrap samples of 0.800 (95% CI: 0.798-0.802). In abdominal lesions, specific IDRF categories differed between high-risk and non-high-risk groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study reveals anatomical imaging differences between high-risk and non-high-risk groups in neuroblastoma with at least one IDRF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Control\",\"volume\":\"32 \",\"pages\":\"10732748251315883\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11748161/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10732748251315883\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10732748251315883","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究比较了具有至少一种图像定义危险因素(IDRF)的神经母细胞瘤高危组和非高危组的解剖影像学特征。它还评估了这些特征在识别高危人群中的诊断性能。方法:回顾性分析至少有一种IDRF的神经母细胞瘤患者。比较两组的影像学特征,包括估计的肿瘤体积和IDRFs。使用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线评估这些特征的诊断效能,并计算ROC曲线下面积(auc)及其95%置信区间(ci)。此外,为了内部验证其诊断性能,采用了1000个bootstrap重采样方法。结果:共纳入255例患者,其中高危患者185例,非高危患者70例。高危组和非高危组在估计肿瘤体积和IDRF数上差异有统计学意义(P < 0.001)。估计肿瘤体积和基于IDRF数字的聚类是独立的危险因素,它们的组合对高危组诊断的AUC为0.801 (95% CI: 0.747-0.848), 1000个bootstrap样本的平均AUC为0.800 (95% CI: 0.798-0.802)。在腹部病变中,高危组和非高危组的特异性IDRF分类差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论:我们的研究揭示了至少有一个IDRF的神经母细胞瘤高危组和非高危组的解剖影像学差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Stratification of Anatomical Imaging Features Between High-Risk and Non-High-Risk Groups in Neuroblastoma.

Background: This study compared anatomical imaging features between high-risk and non-high-risk groups in neuroblastoma with at least one image-defined risk factor (IDRF). It also assessed the diagnostic performance of these features in identifying the high-risk group.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of neuroblastoma patients with at least one IDRF was conducted. Imaging features, including estimated tumor volume and IDRFs, were compared between the two groups. The diagnostic performance of these features was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and the areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Additionally, to internally validate their diagnostic performance, the bootstrap resampling method with 1000 bootstrap resamples was employed.

Results: The study included 255 patients (185 high-risk cases, 70 non-high-risk cases). Significant differences were found in estimated tumor volume and IDRF number between the high-risk and non-high-risk groups (P < 0.001). The estimated tumor volume and the IDRF number-based cluster were independent risk factors, and their combination achieved an AUC of 0.801 (95% CI: 0.747-0.848) for high-risk group diagnosis, with the average AUC of the 1000 bootstrap samples of 0.800 (95% CI: 0.798-0.802). In abdominal lesions, specific IDRF categories differed between high-risk and non-high-risk groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Our study reveals anatomical imaging differences between high-risk and non-high-risk groups in neuroblastoma with at least one IDRF.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cancer Control
Cancer Control ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
148
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cancer Control is a JCR-ranked, peer-reviewed open access journal whose mission is to advance the prevention, detection, diagnosis, treatment, and palliative care of cancer by enabling researchers, doctors, policymakers, and other healthcare professionals to freely share research along the cancer control continuum. Our vision is a world where gold-standard cancer care is the norm, not the exception.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信