Literature DB >> 27688480

Associations Between Somatic Mutations and Metabolic Imaging Phenotypes in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Stephen S F Yip1, John Kim2, Thibaud P Coroller3, Chintan Parmar3, Emmanuel Rios Velazquez3, Elizabeth Huynh3, Raymond H Mak3, Hugo J W L Aerts3,4.   

Abstract

PET-based radiomics have been used to noninvasively quantify the metabolic tumor phenotypes; however, little is known about the relationship between these phenotypes and underlying somatic mutations. This study assessed the association and predictive power of 18F-FDG PET-based radiomic features for somatic mutations in non-small cell lung cancer patients.
Methods: Three hundred forty-eight non-small cell lung cancer patients underwent diagnostic 18F-FDG PET scans and were tested for genetic mutations. Thirteen percent (44/348) and 28% (96/348) of patients were found to harbor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or Kristen rat sarcoma viral (KRAS) mutations, respectively. We evaluated 21 imaging features: 19 independent radiomic features quantifying phenotypic traits and 2 conventional features (metabolic tumor volume and maximum SUV). The association between imaging features and mutation status (e.g., EGFR-positive [EGFR+] vs. EGFR-negative) was assessed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The ability of each imaging feature to predict mutation status was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and its significance was compared with a random guess (AUC = 0.5) using the Noether test. All P values were corrected for multiple hypothesis testing by controlling the false-discovery rate (FDRWilcoxon, FDRNoether) with a significance threshold of 10%.
Results: Eight radiomic features and both conventional features were significantly associated with EGFR mutation status (FDRWilcoxon = 0.01-0.10). One radiomic feature (normalized inverse difference moment) outperformed all other features in predicting EGFR mutation status (EGFR+ vs. EGFR-negative, AUC = 0.67, FDRNoether = 0.0032), as well as differentiating between KRAS-positive and EGFR+ (AUC = 0.65, FDRNoether = 0.05). None of the features was associated with or predictive of KRAS mutation status (KRAS-positive vs. KRAS-negative, AUC = 0.50-0.54).
Conclusion: Our results indicate that EGFR mutations may drive different metabolic tumor phenotypes that are captured in PET images, whereas KRAS-mutated tumors do not. This proof-of-concept study sheds light on genotype-phenotype interactions, using radiomics to capture and describe the phenotype, and may have potential for developing noninvasive imaging biomarkers for somatic mutations.
© 2017 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PET imaging; phenotype; radiomics; somatic mutation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27688480      PMCID: PMC5373502          DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.181826

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  44 in total

Review 1.  Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Optimization of dosing for EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer with evolutionary cancer modeling.

Authors:  Juliann Chmielecki; Jasmine Foo; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Katherine Hutchinson; Kadoaki Ohashi; Romel Somwar; Lu Wang; Katherine R Amato; Maria Arcila; Martin L Sos; Nicholas D Socci; Agnes Viale; Elisa de Stanchina; Michelle S Ginsberg; Roman K Thomas; Mark G Kris; Akira Inoue; Marc Ladanyi; Vincent A Miller; Franziska Michor; William Pao
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2011-07-06       Impact factor: 17.956

3.  Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR.

Authors:  Makoto Maemondo; Akira Inoue; Kunihiko Kobayashi; Shunichi Sugawara; Satoshi Oizumi; Hiroshi Isobe; Akihiko Gemma; Masao Harada; Hirohisa Yoshizawa; Ichiro Kinoshita; Yuka Fujita; Shoji Okinaga; Haruto Hirano; Kozo Yoshimori; Toshiyuki Harada; Takashi Ogura; Masahiro Ando; Hitoshi Miyazawa; Tomoaki Tanaka; Yasuo Saijo; Koichi Hagiwara; Satoshi Morita; Toshihiro Nukiwa
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer is not an independent predictor of EGFR or KRAS mutation status: a retrospective analysis of 206 patients.

Authors:  Seok Mo Lee; Sang Kyun Bae; Soo Jin Jung; Chun K Kim
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 7.794

Review 6.  Intra-tumour heterogeneity: a looking glass for cancer?

Authors:  Andriy Marusyk; Vanessa Almendro; Kornelia Polyak
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 60.716

7.  Role of [¹⁸F]FDG PET in prediction of KRAS and EGFR mutation status in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Carlos Caicedo; Maria Jose Garcia-Velloso; Maria Dolores Lozano; Tania Labiano; Carmen Vigil Diaz; Jose Maria Lopez-Picazo; Alfonso Gurpide; Javier J Zulueta; Javier Zulueta; Jose Angel Richter Echevarria; Jose Luis Perez Gracia
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Correlation of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography maximal standardized uptake value and EGFR mutations in advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Chun-Ta Huang; Rouh-Fang Yen; Mei-Fang Cheng; Ya-Chieh Hsu; Pin-Fei Wei; Yi-Ju Tsai; Meng-Feng Tsai; Jin-Yuan Shih; Chih-Hsin Yang; Pan-Chyr Yang
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2009-01-07       Impact factor: 3.064

Review 9.  Applications and limitations of radiomics.

Authors:  Stephen S F Yip; Hugo J W L Aerts
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  The effect of SUV discretization in quantitative FDG-PET Radiomics: the need for standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis.

Authors:  Ralph T H Leijenaar; Georgi Nalbantov; Sara Carvalho; Wouter J C van Elmpt; Esther G C Troost; Ronald Boellaard; Hugo J W L Aerts; Robert J Gillies; Philippe Lambin
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  59 in total

1.  Perspectives in Radiomics for Personalized Medicine and Theranostics.

Authors:  Seunggyun Ha
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-01-23

2.  Preoperative prediction of regional lymph node metastasis of colorectal cancer based on 18F-FDG PET/CT and machine learning.

Authors:  Jiahong He; Quanshi Wang; Yin Zhang; Hubing Wu; Yongsheng Zhou; Shuangquan Zhao
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 2.668

Review 3.  Radiomics in Oncological PET/CT: Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Jeong Won Lee; Sang Mi Lee
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-10-20

4.  Metabolic Imaging Phenotype Using Radiomics of [18F]FDG PET/CT Associated with Genetic Alterations of Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Shang-Wen Chen; Wei-Chih Shen; William Tzu-Liang Chen; Te-Chun Hsieh; Kuo-Yang Yen; Jan-Gowth Chang; Chia-Hung Kao
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 3.488

5.  Radiomic-Based Pathological Response Prediction from Primary Tumors and Lymph Nodes in NSCLC.

Authors:  Raymond H Mak; Hugo J W L Aerts; Thibaud P Coroller; Vishesh Agrawal; Elizabeth Huynh; Vivek Narayan; Stephanie W Lee
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2016-11-27       Impact factor: 15.609

6.  Value of pre-therapy 18F-FDG PET/CT radiomics in predicting EGFR mutation status in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Jianyuan Zhang; Xinming Zhao; Yan Zhao; Jingmian Zhang; Zhaoqi Zhang; Jianfang Wang; Yingchen Wang; Meng Dai; Jingya Han
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 7.  Radiogenomics Based on PET Imaging.

Authors:  Yong-Jin Park; Mu Heon Shin; Seung Hwan Moon
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2020-05-09

8.  Repeatability of FDG PET/CT metrics assessed in free breathing and deep inspiration breath hold in lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Lotte Nygård; Marianne C Aznar; Barbara M Fischer; Gitte F Persson; Charlotte B Christensen; Flemming L Andersen; Mirjana Josipovic; Seppo W Langer; Andreas Kjær; Ivan R Vogelius; Søren M Bentzen
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-04-25

9.  Somatic Mutations Drive Distinct Imaging Phenotypes in Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Chintan Parmar; Ying Liu; Thibaud P Coroller; Gisele Cruz; Olya Stringfield; Zhaoxiang Ye; Mike Makrigiorgos; Fiona Fennessy; Raymond H Mak; Robert Gillies; John Quackenbush; Hugo J W L Aerts
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 12.701

10.  Correlation between combining 18F-FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters and other clinical features and ALK or ROS1 fusion in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Maomei Ruan; Liu Liu; Lihua Wang; Bei Lei; Xiaoyan Sun; Cheng Chang; Yan Shen; Wenhui Xie
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.