Fig. 3

Survival analysis with time dependent ROC, decision curve analysis (DCA) and calibration curve. The ADCuh performed better than ADC in 3-year PFS evaluation (a). The prognostic model 3 (TNM + EMVI + ADCuh) was superior to model 2 (TNM + EMVI + ADC) and model 1 (TNM + EMVI) in 3-year PFS assessment (b). DCA showed that patients could have higher net benefit than model 2 and model 1 when risk threshold approximately ranged between 0.15 and 0.58 (c). Calibration curves (d-f) demonstrated better agreement of model 3 between predicted PFS and observed PFS than model 2 and model 1