切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华神经创伤外科电子杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (03) : 160 -172. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2026.03.004

临床研究

基于增强MRI的Delta影像组学的组合模型预测脑胶质瘤患者术后复发与生存期
张海东1, 安鹏2,()   
  1. 1441000 襄阳,湖北医药学院附属襄阳市第一人民医院肿瘤科
    2441000 襄阳,湖北医药学院附属襄阳市第一人民医院放射科
  • 收稿日期:2024-12-26 出版日期:2026-06-15
  • 通信作者: 安鹏

Prediction of postoperative recurrence and survival in brain glioma patients based on the Delta radiomics combined model of contrast-enhanced MRI

Haidong Zhang1, Peng An2,()   

  1. 1Department of Oncology, Xiangyang No.1 People’s Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Xiangyang 441000, China
    2Department of Radiology, Xiangyang No.1 People’s Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Xiangyang 441000, China
  • Received:2024-12-26 Published:2026-06-15
  • Corresponding author: Peng An
  • Supported by:
    Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation General Project(2025AFB885); Youth Talent Project of Hubei Provincial Health Commission(WJ2025Q076)
引用本文:

张海东, 安鹏. 基于增强MRI的Delta影像组学的组合模型预测脑胶质瘤患者术后复发与生存期[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2026, 12(03): 160-172.

Haidong Zhang, Peng An. Prediction of postoperative recurrence and survival in brain glioma patients based on the Delta radiomics combined model of contrast-enhanced MRI[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Neurotraumatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2026, 12(03): 160-172.

目的

基于脑胶质瘤(BG)患者术前增强MRI成像的Delta影像组学特征和临床基线资料构建预测模型,评估该模型对BG复发及生存期的预测价值。

方法

回顾性分析湖北医药学院附属襄阳市第一人民医院肿瘤科自2015年8月至2023年4月收治的220例BG患者的临床资料,根据患者生存状态将其分为正常组(n=125)和复发组(n=95),以7∶3的比例建立训练集(155例,正常组88例和复发组67例)和测试集(65例,正常组37例和复发组28例)。分别从瘤周水肿区域(3~12 mm)及肿瘤内提取Delta影像组学特征,采用LASSO算法结合10折交叉验证生成瘤周放射组学评分(Radscore1)和瘤内放射组学评分(Radscore2)。比较训练集和测试集中正常组和复发组患者的临床基线资料及影像学特征差异。基于训练集数据,采用多因素Logistic回归构建3个术后复发预测模型:临床模型、影像模型和组合模型,采用DeLong检验比较各模型间受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积(AUC)的差异,运用决策曲线分析评估各模型的临床净获益,使用XGboost机器学习算法对各模型的预测结果进行验证,并于测试集中进一步验证模型的预测效能。采用Kaplan-Meier法绘制术后总生存期(OS)曲线,组间比较采用Log-rank检验,计算中位生存期及其95%CI,并构建生存列线图评估其对BG患者术后生存的预测价值。

结果

训练集中,2组患者的性别、异柠檬酸脱氢酶-1(IDH1)突变、1p19q杂合缺失、MRI强化方式、Radscore1及Radscore2比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。测试集中上述资料比较结果与训练集一致。多因素Logistic回归分析显示性别、IDH1突变状态、1p19q杂合缺失、Radscore1及Radscore2是BG复发的独立影响因素(P<0.05)。基于上述因素构建3个预测模型:临床模型、影像模型及组合模型,ROC曲线分析显示,组合模型的预测性能(AUC=0.890,95%CI:0.830~0.935)显著优于临床模型(AUC=0.748,95%CI:0.672~0.814)和影像模型(AUC=0.832,95%CI:0.763~0.887),差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。XGboost算法验证了组合模型的预测结果,决策曲线显示组合模型的临床净获益更高。该结果在测试集中得到验证,且最终基于组合模型的列线图简化了BG复发的预测过程,在测试集中敏感度0.857,特异度0.756。Kaplan-Meier生存曲线分析显示,性别、1p19q杂合缺失、Radscore1、Radscore2各亚组间OS比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。基于这些因素建立的生存列线图预测BG生存期的AUC为0.859(95%CI:0.802~0.933),敏感度和特异度分别为0.872和0.705。

结论

基于术前增强MRI的Delta影像组学预测模型可提高BG患者术后复发及生存期的预测准确性,为术后个体化管理和临床决策提供依据。

Objective

To construct a predictive model based on the Delta radiomics and clinical baseline data of preoperative contrast-enhanced MRI imaging, and evaluate its predictive value for recurrence and survival in patients with brain glioma (BG).

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data of 220 BG patients admitted to Oncology Department of Xiangyang No.1 People’s Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine from August 2015 to April 2023. Patients were divided into a normal group (n=125) and a recurrence group (n=95) according to their survival status. The cohort was split into a training set (155 cases, 88 normal cases and 67 recurrence cases) and a testing set (65 cases, 37 normal cases and 28 recurrence cases) at a ratio of 7∶3. Delta radiomics features were extracted from the peritumoral edema area (3-12 mm) and within the tumor, respectively, and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithm combined with ten-fold cross-validation was used to generate the peritumoral radiomics score (Radscore1) and intratumoral radiomics score (Radscore2). The clinical baseline data and imaging characteristics of normal and recurrent patients in the training and testing sets were compared. Based on the training set data, 3 postoperative recurrence prediction models were constructed using multiple Logistic regression: clinical model, imaging model, and combination model. DeLong test was used to compare the differences in area under the ROC curve (AUC) between the models, and decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the clinical net benefit of each model. XGboost machine learning algorithm was used to verify the prediction results of each model, and the predictive performance of the models was further validated in the testing set. Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot the overall survival (OS) curve after surgery, and the Log-rank test was used for inter group comparison. The median OS and 95%CI were calculated, and a survival column chart was constructed to evaluate its predictive value for postoperative survival of BG patients.

Results

In the training set, there were statistically significant differences in gender, isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH1) mutation, 1p19q heterozygous deletion, MRI enhancement mode, and Radscore1 and Radscore2 between the two groups of patients (P<0.05). The comparison results of the above data in the testing set are consistent with those in the training set. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that gender, IDH1 mutation status, 1p19q heterozygous deletion, Radscore1 and Radscore2 were independent influencing factors for BG recurrence (P<0.05). Based on the above factors, three prediction models were constructed: clinical model, imaging model, and combination model. ROC curve analysis showed that the predictive performance of the combination model (AUC=0.890, 95%CI: 0.830-0.935) was significantly better than that of the clinical model (AUC=0.748, 95%CI: 0.672-0.814) and the imaging model (AUC=0.832, 95%CI: 0.763-0.887), and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The XGboost algorithm validated the prediction results of the combination model, and the decision curve showed that the clinical net benefit of the combination model was higher. This result was validated in the testing set, and ultimately the column chart based on the combination model simplified the prediction process of BG recurrence, with a sensitivity of 0.857 and a specificity of 0.756 in the testing set. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences in OS between subgroups based on gender, 1p19q heterozygous deletion, Radscore1, and Radscore2 (P<0.05). The AUC for predicting BG survival based on the survival column chart established based on these factors is 0.859 (95%CI: 0.802-0.933), with sensitivity and specificity of 0.872 and 0.705, respectively.

Conclusions

The predictive model based on Delta radiomics from preoperative contrast-enhanced MRI can improve the prediction of postoperative recurrence and survival in BG patients, providing a basis for individualized management and clinical decision-making after surgery.

图1 基于增强MRI的Delta影像组学分析流程图A:图像分割与三维重建(箭头示肿瘤,绿色为瘤内区域,红色为瘤周区域);B:LASSO回归特征筛选,最佳λ值为0.0369282406289832;C:10折交叉验证;D:影像组学模型决策曲线
Fig.1 Flowchart of Delta radiomics analysis based on enhanced MRI
表1 训练集和测试集中2组脑胶质瘤患者临床资料比较
Tab.1 Comparison of clinical data between two groups of brain glioma patients in the training and testing sets
项目 训练集(n=155) 测试集(n=65)
正常组(n=88) 复发组(n=67) χ2/t/Z P 正常组(n=37) 复发组(n=28) χ2/t/Z P
性别[例(%)]     17.332 <0.001     4.484 0.034
77(87.5) 39(58.2)     29(78.4) 15(53.6)    
11(12.5) 28(41.8)     8(21.6) 13(46.4)    
年龄[岁,MQ1,Q3)] 55.25(50.68,60.60) 52.80(47.55,60.95) 1.212 0.226 52.50(47.30,56.30) 54.10(49.05,58.20) 2.050 0.081
高血压病史[例(%)] 16(18.2) 8(11.9) 1.132 0.287 9(24.3) 10(35.7) 0.999 0.317
糖尿病史[例(%)] 17(19.3) 11(16.4) 0.216 0.641 5(13.5) 7(25.0) 1.396 0.237
吸烟史[例(%)] 20(22.7) 13(19.4) 0.251 0.616 11(29.7) 6(21.4) 0.568 0.450
饮酒史[例(%)] 12(13.6) 14(20.8) 1.435 0.231 20(54.1) 16(57.1) 0.061 0.804
BMI(kg/m2±s 25.47±2.78 24.75±3.01 1.542 0.123 24.59±2.87 24.87±2.65 1.166 0.243
肿瘤位置[例(%)]     3.238 0.196     1.204 0.228
额顶叶 43(48.9) 29(43.3)     21(56.8) 13(46.4)    
颞叶和基底节区 21(23.9) 11(16.4)     15(40.5) 11(39.3)    
小脑和枕叶 24(27.3) 27(40.3)     1(2.7) 4(14.3)    
WHO分级[例(%)]     1.934 0.382     3.378 0.185
1级 48(54.5) 29(43.3)     24(64.9) 13(46.4)    
2级 15(17.0) 14(20.9)     7(18.9) 11(39.3)    
3级 25(28.4) 24(35.8)     6(16.2) 4(14.3)    
Ki-67表达水平[MQ1,Q3)] 43.50(18.75,52.00) 44.00(19.00,55.00) 2556.000 0.157 43.00(17.00,53.00) 44.50(18.00,53.25) 1479.000 0.309
手术方法[例(%)]     0.026 0.846     0.018 0.890
开颅术 62(70.5) 48(71.6)     27(73.0) 20(71.4)    
微创手术 26(29.5) 19(28.4)     10(27.0) 8(28.6)    
肿瘤局部坏死[例(%)]     0.001 0.938     1.674 0.195
38(43.2) 29(43.3)     9(24.3) 11(39.3)    
50(56.8) 38(56.7)     28(75.7) 17(60.7)    
PLR(±s 150.06±42.27 161.68±51.11 1.548 0.124 155.31±43.22 158.71±47.65 1.105 0.247
NLR[MQ1,Q3)] 3.78(2.95,4.55) 4.00(3.23,4.84) 2609.500 0.222 3.34(2.62,3.77) 3.73(2.87,4.55) 435.000 0.274
IDH1突变[例(%)]     4.211 0.038     3.968 0.046
59(67.0) 34(50.7)     25(67.6) 12(42.9)    
29(33.0) 33(49.3)     12(32.4) 16(57.1)    
1p19q杂合缺失[例(%)]     4.318 0.026     4.425 0.035
74(84.1) 20(29.9)     32(86.5) 18(64.3)    
14(15.9) 47(70.1)     5(13.5) 10(35.7)    
MGMT启动子甲基化[例(%)]     0.022 0.854     0.063 0.801
24(27.3) 19(28.4)     13(35.1) 9(32.1)    
64(72.7) 48(71.6)     24(64.9) 19(67.9)    
Radscore1 0.43±0.08 0.49±0.05 6.228 <0.001 0.44±0.06 0.49±0.06 3.403 0.001
Radscore2 0.40±0.14 0.54±0.16 5.597 0.001 0.41±0.11 0.50±0.15 2.758 0.007
MRI强化方式[例(%)]     2.261 0.025     8.560 0.013
流入型 7(7.9) 12(17.9)     1(2.8) 2(7.1)    
平台型 20(22.7) 19(28.4)     18(48.6) 4(14.3)    
流出型 61(69.4) 36(53.7)     18(48.6) 22(78.6)    
表2 训练集中脑胶质瘤复发的影响因素分析
Tab.2 Analysis of influencing factors on brain glioma recurrence in the training set
图2 训练集与测试集中3个预测模型的受试者工作特征曲线分析A:训练集;B:测试集
Fig.2 Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of three predictive models in the training and testing sets
图3 预测脑胶质瘤复发影响因素的XGBoost算法模型Radscore:放射组学评分;IDH1:异柠檬酸脱氢酶;BMI:体质量指数;PLR:外周血中血小板计数与淋巴细胞计数的比值;NLR:外周血中性粒细胞计数与淋巴细胞计数的比值;WHO:世界卫生组织
Fig.3 XGBoost algorithm model for predicting influencing factors of brain glioma recurrence
图4 训练集与测试集中3个预测模型的决策曲线分析A:训练集;B:测试集
Fig.4 Decision curve analysis of three predictive models in the training and testing sets
图5 训练集组合模型预测脑胶质瘤复发的列线图和校准曲线A:列线图;B:校准曲线
Fig.5 Nomogram and calibration curve of the training set combination model for predicting brain glioma recurrence
表3 脑胶质瘤患者不同亚组术后OS比较
Tab.3 Comparison of postoperative OS in different subgroups of brain glioma patients
图6 性别、1p19q杂合缺失、Radscore1、Radscore2与脑胶质瘤术后总生存期的Kaplan-Meier分析A:性别;B:1p19q杂合缺失;C:Radscore1;D:Radscore2;Radscore:放射组学评分
Fig.6 Kaplan-Meier analysis of gender, 1p19q codeletion, Radscore1, Radscore2, with overall survival after brain glioma surgery
图7 脑胶质瘤患者生存预测列线图及校准曲线A:列线图;B:校准曲线
Fig.7 Nomogram and calibration curve for predicting brain glioma survival
[1]
Mitra S. Deep learning with radiogenomics towards personalized management of gliomas[J]. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng, 2023, 16: 579-593. DOI: 10.1109/rbme.2021.3075500.
[2]
王莹莹. 神经导航联合术中神经电生理监测在脑干胶质瘤手术切除中的应用[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(5): 293-298. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2024.05.006.
[3]
Wagner MW, Namdar K, Napoleone M, et al. Radiomic features based on MRI predict progression-free survival in pediatric diffuse midline glioma/diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma[J]. Can Assoc Radiol J, 2023, 74(1): 119-126. DOI: 10.1177/08465371221109921.
[4]
麦麦提力·米吉提,李云雷,吴昊, 等. 弥散张量成像传导束重建技术指导高级别胶质瘤切除的临床研究[J]. 2022, 8(2): 101-105. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2022.02.008.
[5]
Liu D, Chen J, Ge H, et al. Radiogenomics to characterize the immune-related prognostic signature associated with biological functions in glioblastoma[J]. Eur Radiol, 2023, 33(1): 209-220. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-09012-x.
[6]
中国医师协会放射学分会"互联网+"影像学组. 中枢神经系统肿瘤的MRI影像标注专家共识[J]. 国际医学放射学杂志, 2021, 44(4): 378-384. DOI: 10.19300/j.2021.S19165.
[7]
Cheng J, Liu J, Yue H, et al. Prediction of glioma grade using intratumoral and peritumoral radiomic features from multiparametric MRI images[J]. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform, 2022, 19(2): 1084-1095. DOI: 10.1109/tcbb.2020.3033538.
[8]
Zhang L, Pan H, Liu Z, et al. Multicenter clinical radiomics-integrated model based on [18F]FDG PET and multi-modal MRI predict ATRX mutation status in IDH-mutant lower-grade gliomas[J]. Eur Radiol, 2023, 33(2): 872-883. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-09043-4.
[9]
杨智钧,谷佳,丁聿贤, 等. 脑胶质瘤患者血清炎性因子水平与病理分级及预后的相关性[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(4): 238-242. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2024.04.008.
[10]
余成龙,刘静,林帆, 等. 多学科诊疗门诊在神经肿瘤病例中的诊治效率评估[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2022, 8(4): 229-235. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2022.04.007.
[11]
Matteoni S, Abbruzzese C, Villani V, et al. The influence of patient sex on clinical approaches to malignant glioma[J]. Cancer Lett, 2020, 468: 41-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2019.10.012.
[12]
Jiang S, Guo P, Heo HY, et al. Radiomics analysis of amide proton transfer-weighted and structural MR images for treatment response assessment in malignant gliomas[J]. NMR Biomed, 2023, 36(1): e4824. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.4824.
[13]
Wang H, Zhang S, Xing X, et al. Radiomic study on preoperative multi-modal magnetic resonance images identifies IDH-mutant TERT promoter-mutant gliomas[J]. Cancer Med, 2023, 12(3): 2524-2537. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5097.
[14]
Hu G, Hu X, Yang K, et al. Radiomics-based machine learning to predict recurrence in glioma patients using magnetic resonance imaging[J]. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2023, 47(1): 129-135. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000001386.
[15]
Li Z, Holzgreve A, Unterrainer LM, et al. Combination of pre-treatment dynamic [18F]FET PET radiomics and conventional clinical parameters for the survival stratification in patients with IDH-wildtype glioblastoma[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2023, 50(2): 535-545. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-05988-2.
[16]
Mahajan A, Sahu A, Ashtekar R, et al. Glioma radiogenomics and artificial intelligence: Road to precision cancer medicine[J]. Clin Radiol, 2023, 78(2): 137-149. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2022.08.138.
[17]
Joo B, Ahn SS, An C, et al. Fully automated radiomics-based machine learning models for multiclass classification of single brain tumors: Glioblastoma, lymphoma, and metastasis[J]. J Neuroradiol, 2023, 50(4): 388-395. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurad.2022.11.001.
[18]
Parvaze PS, Bhattacharjee R, Verma YK, et al. Quantification of radiomics features of peritumoral vasogenic edema extracted from fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images in glioblastoma and isolated brain metastasis, using T1-dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion analysis[J]. NMR Biomed, 2023, 36(5): e4884. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.4884.
[19]
Zhang J, Wu Y, Wang Y, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging and arterial spin labeling radiomics features may improve differentiation between radiation-induced brain injury and glioma recurrence[J]. Eur Radiol, 2023, 33(5): 3332-3342. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-09365-3.
[20]
Ubaldi L, Saponaro S, Giuliano A, et al. Deriving quantitative information from multiparametric MRI via radiomics: Evaluation of the robustness and predictive value of radiomic features in the discrimination of low-grade versus high-grade gliomas with machine learning[J]. Phys Med, 2023, 107: 102538. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102538.
[21]
Xia W, Hu B, Li H, et al. Multiparametric-MRI-based radiomics model for differentiating primary central nervous system lymphoma from glioblastoma: Development and cross-vendor validation[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 53(1): 242-250. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27344.
[22]
马木提江·木尔提扎,汪永新,阿西木江·阿西尔, 等. 多模态三维影像融合技术在颅内功能区病变手术中的应用[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 9(5): 302-307. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2023.05.008.
[1] 王晗宇, 张司可, 张羽, 万欣, 贺秋霞, 李明明, 杨秀华. 超声造影在脑胶质瘤切除术术中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(07): 755-760.
[2] 王冬芮, 张永慈, 王增光. 槲皮素对人脑胶质瘤干细胞生物学行为及miR-29s家族的影响分析[J/OL]. 中华细胞与干细胞杂志(电子版), 2018, 08(03): 129-133.
[3] 余成龙, 刘静, 林帆, 张协军, 阳吉虎, 刘玉飞, 陈垒, 张玛莉, 蒋太鹏, 李维平, 黄国栋, 陈凡帆. 多学科诊疗门诊在神经肿瘤病例中的诊治效率评估[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2022, 08(04): 229-235.
[4] 陈圣攀, 左晓坤, 夏鹰. 脑胶质瘤的治疗进展[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2017, 03(02): 105-108.
[5] 葛家祥, 王家蕤, 韦丽彩, 于瀚博, 傅立新. “神-气-筋”理论在脑胶质瘤术后康复应用一例报道[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(02): 122-124.
[6] 向琰, 黄国浩, 杨伟, 刘国龙, 谢源, 吕胜青. 显微镜下黄荧光引导技术切除高级别脑胶质瘤[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2021, 11(05): 319-320.
[7] 曹勇勇, 付饶, 吕宏尧, 易旻晗, 尹宏鹏, 吕胜青. 基于人工智能的影像组学与数字病理学研究在脑胶质瘤诊断中的应用进展[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2020, 10(04): 230-233.
[8] 钟光华, 郑守链, 唐娉. 基于TCGA和CGGA数据库探究KIF15在胶质瘤中的表达及临床意义[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2020, 10(03): 153-159.
[9] 冯海涛, 徐涛, 刘文阳, 孙晨, 曹尚超. 三维动脉自旋标记联合动态对比增强MRI对脑胶质瘤术后复发及放射性脑坏死诊断的研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(04): 262-265.
[10] 刘阳, 梁浩, 高洁, 朱琳, 崔阳光, 郭高超, 高涛, 孙玉学, 刘自强, 栗超跃, 赵黎明. 人脑胶质瘤中IKBKE和Aurora A的表达与临床病理特征相关性的分析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 263-268.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?