| Literature DB >> 21673686 |
J P B O'Connor1, C J Rose, A Jackson, Y Watson, S Cheung, F Maders, B J Whitcher, C Roberts, G A Buonaccorsi, G Thompson, A R Clamp, G C Jayson, G J M Parker.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence that imaging biomarkers can predict subsequent response to therapy. Such prognostic and/or predictive biomarkers would facilitate development of personalised medicine. We hypothesised that pre-treatment measurement of the heterogeneity of tumour vascular enhancement could predict clinical outcome following combination anti-angiogenic and cytotoxic chemotherapy in colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21673686 PMCID: PMC3137409 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Figure 1Derivation of a thresholded parameter map to enable calculation of enhancing fraction (EF) and box dimension (d0). (A) Ktrans map across a single slice within a CRC liver metastasis shows marked spatial heterogeneity. (B) A criterion is applied to the contrast agent concentration time series to identify enhancing voxels (NE) and the resultant map is shown. EF is calculated as the ratio of NE to the number of tumour voxels (NT). (C) A box surrounding the object defined by the enhancing voxels is successively divided, defining a range of scales (s) at which the number of boxes containing a part of the object is counted (n). (D) d0 is the slope of the line of best fit through the points (log n, log 1/s) and quantifies the space filling properties of the parameter map.
Result of the errors-in-variables regression shows: the model's F statistic, P, and R2 values
| F3, 22 | 25.86 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ⩽0.00005 | ||||
|
| 0.86 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| −147.08 | −3.37 | 0.003 | −237.49 | −56.67 |
|
| −2.35 | −8.46 | ⩽0.0005 | −2.93 | −1.78 |
|
| 156.10 | 4.04 | 0.001 | 75.91 | 236.30 |
| Constant | −47.19 | −0.68 | 0.506 | −191.83 | 97.45 |
Abbreviations: d0=fractal measure box dimension; EF=enhancing fraction; ve=median extravascular extracellular space volume.
The variables listed were significant in the final model (corresponding coefficients, t statistics, P values, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are provided). The constant term in the linear model is also included.
Figure 2Scatter plots showing the relationship between (A) median ve, (B) EF, and (C) d0 and remaining tumour volume (%).
Figure 3Cumulative distribution functions of prediction error for the leave-one-tumour-out (dashed blue) and leave-one-patient-out (solid green) analyses. Red lines show prediction error for 50% and 80% of all cases.
Figure 4Bland–Altman plots for (A) leave-one-tumour-out and (B) leave-one-patient-out predictions, showing the mean difference between the actual and predicted changes in volume, and that mean ±2 s.d. of the differences.