UNLABELLED: (18)F-FDG PET is often used in clinical routine for diagnosis, staging, and response to therapy assessment or prediction. The standardized uptake value (SUV) in the primary or regional area is the most common quantitative measurement derived from PET images used for those purposes. The aim of this study was to propose and evaluate new parameters obtained by textural analysis of baseline PET scans for the prediction of therapy response in esophageal cancer. METHODS: Forty-one patients with newly diagnosed esophageal cancer treated with combined radiochemotherapy were included in this study. All patients underwent pretreatment whole-body (18)F-FDG PET. Patients were treated with radiotherapy and alkylatinlike agents (5-fluorouracil-cisplatin or 5-fluorouracil-carboplatin). Patients were classified as nonresponders (progressive or stable disease), partial responders, or complete responders according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Different image-derived indices obtained from the pretreatment PET tumor images were considered. These included usual indices such as maximum SUV, peak SUV, and mean SUV and a total of 38 features (such as entropy, size, and magnitude of local and global heterogeneous and homogeneous tumor regions) extracted from the 5 different textures considered. The capacity of each parameter to classify patients with respect to response to therapy was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P < 0.05). Specificity and sensitivity (including 95% confidence intervals) for each of the studied parameters were derived using receiver-operating-characteristic curves. RESULTS: Relationships between pairs of voxels, characterizing local tumor metabolic nonuniformities, were able to significantly differentiate all 3 patient groups (P < 0.0006). Regional measures of tumor characteristics, such as size of nonuniform metabolic regions and corresponding intensity nonuniformities within these regions, were also significant factors for prediction of response to therapy (P = 0.0002). Receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis showed that tumor textural analysis can provide nonresponder, partial-responder, and complete-responder patient identification with higher sensitivity (76%-92%) than any SUV measurement. CONCLUSION: Textural features of tumor metabolic distribution extracted from baseline (18)F-FDG PET images allow for the best stratification of esophageal carcinoma patients in the context of therapy-response prediction.
UNLABELLED: (18)F-FDG PET is often used in clinical routine for diagnosis, staging, and response to therapy assessment or prediction. The standardized uptake value (SUV) in the primary or regional area is the most common quantitative measurement derived from PET images used for those purposes. The aim of this study was to propose and evaluate new parameters obtained by textural analysis of baseline PET scans for the prediction of therapy response in esophageal cancer. METHODS: Forty-one patients with newly diagnosed esophageal cancer treated with combined radiochemotherapy were included in this study. All patients underwent pretreatment whole-body (18)F-FDG PET. Patients were treated with radiotherapy and alkylatinlike agents (5-fluorouracil-cisplatin or 5-fluorouracil-carboplatin). Patients were classified as nonresponders (progressive or stable disease), partial responders, or complete responders according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Different image-derived indices obtained from the pretreatment PET tumor images were considered. These included usual indices such as maximum SUV, peak SUV, and mean SUV and a total of 38 features (such as entropy, size, and magnitude of local and global heterogeneous and homogeneous tumor regions) extracted from the 5 different textures considered. The capacity of each parameter to classify patients with respect to response to therapy was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P < 0.05). Specificity and sensitivity (including 95% confidence intervals) for each of the studied parameters were derived using receiver-operating-characteristic curves. RESULTS: Relationships between pairs of voxels, characterizing local tumor metabolic nonuniformities, were able to significantly differentiate all 3 patient groups (P < 0.0006). Regional measures of tumor characteristics, such as size of nonuniform metabolic regions and corresponding intensity nonuniformities within these regions, were also significant factors for prediction of response to therapy (P = 0.0002). Receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis showed that tumor textural analysis can provide nonresponder, partial-responder, and complete-responder patient identification with higher sensitivity (76%-92%) than any SUV measurement. CONCLUSION: Textural features of tumor metabolic distribution extracted from baseline (18)F-FDG PET images allow for the best stratification of esophageal carcinomapatients in the context of therapy-response prediction.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: H L van Westreenen; M Westerterp; P M M Bossuyt; J Pruim; G W Sloof; J J B van Lanschot; H Groen; J Th M Plukker Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ludwig G Strauss; Leyun Pan; Dirk Koczan; Sven Klippel; Krzysztof Mikolajczyk; Cyrill Burger; Uwe Haberkorn; Klaus Schönleben; Hans-Jürgen Thiesen; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Joseph G Rajendran; David L Schwartz; Janet O'Sullivan; Lanell M Peterson; Patrick Ng; Jeffrey Scharnhorst; John R Grierson; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Maximilian Diehn; Christine Nardini; David S Wang; Susan McGovern; Mahesh Jayaraman; Yu Liang; Kenneth Aldape; Soonmee Cha; Michael D Kuo Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Heta Javeri; Lianchun Xiao; Eric Rohren; Ritsuko Komaki; Wayne Hofstetter; Jeffrey H Lee; Dipen Maru; Manoop S Bhutani; Stephen G Swisher; Xuemei Wang; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Matthew J Nyflot; Fei Yang; Darrin Byrd; Stephen R Bowen; George A Sandison; Paul E Kinahan Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2015-08-05
Authors: Manuel Weber; Lukas Kessler; Benedikt Schaarschmidt; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Harald Lahner; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Christoph Rischpler Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Mu Zhou; Lawrence Hall; Dmitry Goldgof; Robin Russo; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Robert Gillies; Robert Gatenby Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Ralph T H Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Wouter J C van Elmpt; Chintan Parmar; Otto S Hoekstra; Corneline J Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; André L A J Dekker; Robert J Gillies; Hugo J W L Aerts; Philippe Lambin Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 4.089