Cited by 63Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFerroptosis and cancer prognosis

A radiogenomics signature for predicting the clinical outcome of bladder urothelial carcinoma

Lin, Peng, Wen, Dong-yue, Chen, Ling, Li, Xin, Li, Sheng-hua, Yan, Hai-biao, He, Rong-quan, Chen, Gang +2 more·2020·European Radiology

Abstract

Objectives To determine the integrative value of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), transcriptomics data and clinicopathological data for predicting the survival of bladder urothelial carcinoma (BLCA) patients. Methods RNA sequencing data, radiomics features and clinical parameters of 62 BLCA patients were included in the study. Then, prognostic signatures based on radiomics features and gene expression profile were constructed by using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox analysis. A multi-omics nomogram was developed by integrating radiomics, transcriptomics and clinicopathological data. More importantly, radiomics risk score-related genes were identified via weighted correlation network analysis and submitted to functional enrichment analysis. Results The radiomics and transcriptomics signatures significantly stratified BLCA patients into high- and low-risk groups in terms of the progression-free interval (PFI). The two risk models remained independent prognostic factors in multivariate analyses after adjusting for clinical parameters. A nomogram was developed and showed an excellent predictive ability for the PFI in BLCA patients. Functional enrichment analysis suggested that the radiomics signature we developed could reflect the angiogenesis status of BLCA patients. Conclusions The integrative nomogram incorporated CECT radiomics, transcriptomics and clinical features improved the PFI prediction in BLCA patients and is a feasible and pra…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00330-019-06371-w

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 41 · Cited by 63

Authors
Lin, P., Wen, D.-Y., Chen, L., Li, X., Li, S.-H., Yan, H.-B., He, R.-Q., Chen, G., He, Y., & Yang, H.
Affiliations
First Affiliated Hospital of GuangXi Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Yang, Hong
Venue
European Radiology
Published
2019-08-08
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
547-557
ISSN
  • 0938-7994 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1084
OpenAlex
W2968685186
Cited by
63
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • the Guangxi Science and Technology Program (GuiKeAB17195020)
  • Fund of National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC81260222)
  • Innovation Project of Guangxi Graduate Education (YCSW2018104)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Ferroptosis and cancer prognosis
Keywords
bladder urothelial carcinoma, radiomics, transcriptomics, radiogenomics, prognostic signature, progression-free interval, contrast-enhanced CT, angiogenesis, survival prediction
MeSH terms
Adult, Urinary Bladder, Urinary Bladder Neoplasms, Contrast Media, Female, Humans, Male, Prognosis, Radiographic Image Enhancement, Risk Factors, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Survival Analysis, Nomograms, Transcriptome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review