Search

IntroductionContrast-enhanced MRI is routinely performed as part of preoperative work-up for patients with Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases (CRLM). Radiomic biomarkers depicting the characteristics of CRLMs in MRI have been associated with overall survival (OS) of patients, but the reproducibility and clinical applicability of these biomarkers are limited due to the variations in MRI protocols between hospitals.MethodsIn this work, we propose a generalizable radiomic model for predicting OS of CRLM patients who received preoperative chemotherapy and delayed-phase contrast enhanced (DPCE) MRIs prior to hepatic resection. This retrospective two-center study included three DPCE MRI cohorts (n=221) collected between January 2006 and December 2012. A 10-minute delayed Gd-DO3A-butrol enhanced MRI discovery cohort was used to select features based on robustness across contrast agents, correlation with OS and pairwise Pearson correlation, and to train a logistic regression model that predicts 3-year OS.ResultsThe model was evaluated on a 10-minute delayed Gd-DO3A-butrol enhanced MRI validation cohort (n=121), a 20-minute delayed Gd-EOB-DTPA (n=72) cohort from the same institute, and a 5-minute delayed Gd-DTPA cohort (n=28) from an independent institute. Two features were selected: minor axis length and dependence variance. The radiomic signature model stratified high-risk and low-risk CRLM groups in the Gd-DO3Abutrol (HR = 6.29, p = .007), Gd-EOB-DTPA (HR = 3.54, p = .003) and Gd-DTPA (HR = 3.16, p = .04) validation cohorts.DiscussionWhile most existing MRI findings focus on a specific contrast agent, our study shows the potential of MRI features to be generalizable across main-stream contrast agents at delayed phase.

Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding are serious and potentially fatal complications of surgical procedures. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis decreases the risk of VTE but increases the risk of major post-operative bleeding. The decision to use pharmacologic prophylaxis therefore represents a trade-off that critically depends on the incidence of VTE and bleeding in the absence of prophylaxis. These baseline risks vary widely between procedures, but their magnitude is uncertain. Systematic reviews addressing baseline risks are scarce, needed, and require innovations in methodology. Indeed, systematic summaries of these baseline risk estimates exist neither in general nor gynecologic surgery. We will fill this knowledge gap by performing a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the procedure-specific and patient risk factor stratified risk estimates in general and gynecologic surgeries. Methods We will perform comprehensive literature searches for observational studies in general and gynecologic surgery reporting symptomatic VTE or bleeding estimates. Pairs of methodologically trained reviewers will independently assess the studies for eligibility, evaluate the risk of bias by using an instrument developed for this review, and extract data. We will perform meta-analyses and modeling studies to adjust the reported risk estimates for the use of thromboprophylaxis and length of follow up. We will derive the estimates of risk from the median estimates of studies rated at the lowest risk of bias. The primary outcomes are the risk estimates of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding at 4 weeks post-operatively for each procedure stratified by patient risk factors. We will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate evidence certainty. Discussion This series of systematic reviews, modeling studies, and meta-analyses will inform clinicians and patients regarding the trade-off between VTE prevention and bleeding in general and gynecologic surgeries. Our work advances the standards in systematic reviews of surgical complications, including assessment of risk of bias, criteria for arriving at the best estimates of risk (including modeling of the timing of events and dealing with suboptimal data reporting), dealing with subgroups at higher and lower risk of bias, and use of the GRADE approach. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42021234119