Tyler J Bradshaw1, Stephen R Bowen2, Michael A Deveau3, Lyndsay Kubicek4, Pamela White5, Søren M Bentzen6, Richard J Chappell7, Lisa J Forrest5, Robert Jeraj8. 1. Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 2. Departments of Radiation Oncology and Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 4. Angell Animal Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Surgical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 6. Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, University of Maryland Greenebaum Cancer Center, and Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 8. Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; Department of Human Oncology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. Electronic address: rjeraj@wisc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Imaging biomarkers of resistance to radiation therapy can inform and guide treatment management. Most studies have so far focused on assessing a single imaging biomarker. The goal of this study was to explore a number of different molecular imaging biomarkers as surrogates of resistance to radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-two canine patients with spontaneous sinonasal tumors were treated with accelerated hypofractionated radiation therapy, receiving either 10 fractions of 4.2 Gy each or 10 fractions of 5.0 Gy each to the gross tumor volume. Patients underwent fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-, fluorothymidine (FLT)-, and Cu(II)-diacetyl-bis(N4-methylthiosemicarbazone) (Cu-ATSM)-labeled positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging before therapy and FLT and Cu-ATSM PET/CT imaging during therapy. In addition to conventional maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUV(max); SUV(mean)) measurements, imaging metrics providing response and spatiotemporal information were extracted for each patient. Progression-free survival was assessed according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumor. The prognostic value of each imaging biomarker was evaluated using univariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Multivariable analysis was also performed but was restricted to 2 predictor variables due to the limited number of patients. The best bivariable model was selected according to pseudo-R(2). RESULTS: The following variables were significantly associated with poor clinical outcome following radiation therapy according to univariable analysis: tumor volume (P=.011), midtreatment FLT SUV(mean) (P=.018), and midtreatment FLT SUV(max) (P=.006). Large decreases in FLT SUV(mean) from pretreatment to midtreatment were associated with worse clinical outcome (P=.013). In the bivariable model, the best 2-variable combination for predicting poor outcome was high midtreatment FLT SUV(max) (P=.022) in combination with large FLT response from pretreatment to midtreatment (P=.041). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to tumor volume, pronounced tumor proliferative response quantified using FLT PET, especially when associated with high residual FLT PET at midtreatment, is a negative prognostic biomarker of outcome in canine tumors following radiation therapy. Neither FDG PET nor Cu-ATSM PET were predictive of outcome.
PURPOSE: Imaging biomarkers of resistance to radiation therapy can inform and guide treatment management. Most studies have so far focused on assessing a single imaging biomarker. The goal of this study was to explore a number of different molecular imaging biomarkers as surrogates of resistance to radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-two caninepatients with spontaneous sinonasal tumors were treated with accelerated hypofractionated radiation therapy, receiving either 10 fractions of 4.2 Gy each or 10 fractions of 5.0 Gy each to the gross tumor volume. Patients underwent fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-, fluorothymidine (FLT)-, and Cu(II)-diacetyl-bis(N4-methylthiosemicarbazone) (Cu-ATSM)-labeled positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging before therapy and FLT and Cu-ATSM PET/CT imaging during therapy. In addition to conventional maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUV(max); SUV(mean)) measurements, imaging metrics providing response and spatiotemporal information were extracted for each patient. Progression-free survival was assessed according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumor. The prognostic value of each imaging biomarker was evaluated using univariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Multivariable analysis was also performed but was restricted to 2 predictor variables due to the limited number of patients. The best bivariable model was selected according to pseudo-R(2). RESULTS: The following variables were significantly associated with poor clinical outcome following radiation therapy according to univariable analysis: tumor volume (P=.011), midtreatment FLT SUV(mean) (P=.018), and midtreatment FLT SUV(max) (P=.006). Large decreases in FLT SUV(mean) from pretreatment to midtreatment were associated with worse clinical outcome (P=.013). In the bivariable model, the best 2-variable combination for predicting poor outcome was high midtreatment FLT SUV(max) (P=.022) in combination with large FLT response from pretreatment to midtreatment (P=.041). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to tumor volume, pronounced tumor proliferative response quantified using FLT PET, especially when associated with high residual FLT PET at midtreatment, is a negative prognostic biomarker of outcome in caninetumors following radiation therapy. Neither FDG PET nor Cu-ATSM PET were predictive of outcome.
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: Reinhard Bos; Jacobus J M van Der Hoeven; Elsken van Der Wall; Petra van Der Groep; Paul J van Diest; Emile F I Comans; Urvi Joshi; Gregg L Semenza; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Carla F M Molthoff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Farrokh Dehdashti; Mark A Mintun; Jason S Lewis; Jeffrey Bradley; Ramaswamy Govindan; Richard Laforest; Michael J Welch; Barry A Siegel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-04-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby; Mark A Mintun; Jason S Lewis; Barry A Siegel; Michael J Welch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Valerie J Poirier; Ethel S Y Koh; Johnson Darko; Andre Fleck; Christopher Pinard; David M Vail Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 3.333