INTRODUCTION: Noninvasive biomarkers that capture the total tumor burden could provide important complementary information for precision medicine to aid clinical decision making. We investigated the value of radiomic data extracted from pretreatment computed tomography images of the primary tumor and lymph nodes in predicting pathological response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation before surgery. METHODS: A total of 85 patients with resectable locally advanced (stage II-III) NSCLC (median age 60.3 years, 65% female) treated from 2003 to 2013 were included in this institutional review board-approved study. Radiomics analysis was performed on 85 primary tumors and 178 lymph nodes to discriminate between pathological complete response (pCR) and gross residual disease (GRD). Twenty nonredundant and stable features (10 from each site) were evaluated by using the area under the curve (AUC) (all p values were corrected for multiple hypothesis testing). Classification performance of each feature set was evaluated by random forest and nested cross validation. RESULTS: Three radiomic features (describing primary tumor sphericity and lymph node homogeneity) were significantly predictive of pCR with similar performances (all AUC = 0.67, p < 0.05). Two features (quantifying lymph node homogeneity) were predictive of GRD (AUC range 0.72-0.75, p < 0.05) and performed significantly better than the primary features (AUC = 0.62). Multivariate analysis showed that for pCR, the radiomic features set alone had the best-performing classification (median AUC = 0.68). Furthermore, for GRD classification, the combination of radiomic and clinical data significantly outperformed all other feature sets (median AUC = 0.73). CONCLUSION: Lymph node phenotypic information was significantly predictive for pathological response and showed higher classification performance than radiomic features obtained from the primary tumor.
INTRODUCTION: Noninvasive biomarkers that capture the total tumor burden could provide important complementary information for precision medicine to aid clinical decision making. We investigated the value of radiomic data extracted from pretreatment computed tomography images of the primary tumor and lymph nodes in predicting pathological response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation before surgery. METHODS: A total of 85 patients with resectable locally advanced (stage II-III) NSCLC (median age 60.3 years, 65% female) treated from 2003 to 2013 were included in this institutional review board-approved study. Radiomics analysis was performed on 85 primary tumors and 178 lymph nodes to discriminate between pathological complete response (pCR) and gross residual disease (GRD). Twenty nonredundant and stable features (10 from each site) were evaluated by using the area under the curve (AUC) (all p values were corrected for multiple hypothesis testing). Classification performance of each feature set was evaluated by random forest and nested cross validation. RESULTS: Three radiomic features (describing primary tumor sphericity and lymph node homogeneity) were significantly predictive of pCR with similar performances (all AUC = 0.67, p < 0.05). Two features (quantifying lymph node homogeneity) were predictive of GRD (AUC range 0.72-0.75, p < 0.05) and performed significantly better than the primary features (AUC = 0.62). Multivariate analysis showed that for pCR, the radiomic features set alone had the best-performing classification (median AUC = 0.68). Furthermore, for GRD classification, the combination of radiomic and clinical data significantly outperformed all other feature sets (median AUC = 0.73). CONCLUSION: Lymph node phenotypic information was significantly predictive for pathological response and showed higher classification performance than radiomic features obtained from the primary tumor.
Authors: Michael T Jaklitsch; James E Herndon; Malcolm M DeCamp; William G Richards; Parvesh Kumar; Mark J Krasna; Mark R Green; David J Sugarbaker Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Mohan Suntharalingam; Rebecca Paulus; Martin J Edelman; Mark Krasna; Whitney Burrows; Elizabeth Gore; Lynn D Wilson; Hak Choy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-04-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Ralph Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Patrick Granton; Catharina M L Zegers; Robert Gillies; Ronald Boellard; André Dekker; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Stephen S F Yip; Thibaud P Coroller; Nina N Sanford; Elizabeth Huynh; Harvey Mamon; Hugo J W L Aerts; Ross I Berbeco Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Stephen S F Yip; John Kim; Thibaud P Coroller; Chintan Parmar; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Elizabeth Huynh; Raymond H Mak; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Chintan Parmar; Patrick Grossmann; Derek Rietveld; Michelle M Rietbergen; Philippe Lambin; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Fergus Davnall; Connie S P Yip; Gunnar Ljungqvist; Mariyah Selmi; Francesca Ng; Bal Sanghera; Balaji Ganeshan; Kenneth A Miles; Gary J Cook; Vicky Goh Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2012-10-24
Authors: Yang Qu; Katsura Emoto; Takashi Eguchi; Rania G Aly; Hua Zheng; Jamie E Chaft; Kay See Tan; David R Jones; Mark G Kris; Prasad S Adusumilli; William D Travis Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Ji Eun Park; Donghyun Kim; Ho Sung Kim; Seo Young Park; Jung Youn Kim; Se Jin Cho; Jae Ho Shin; Jeong Hoon Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Juan Jiménez-Sánchez; Álvaro Martínez-Rubio; Anton Popov; Julián Pérez-Beteta; Youness Azimzade; David Molina-García; Juan Belmonte-Beitia; Gabriel F Calvo; Víctor M Pérez-García Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 4.475
Authors: Wei Wu; Larry A Pierce; Yuzheng Zhang; Sudhakar N J Pipavath; Timothy W Randolph; Kristin J Lastwika; Paul D Lampe; A McGarry Houghton; Haining Liu; Liming Xia; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Paul Flechsig; Ramin Rastgoo; Clemens Kratochwil; Ole Martin; Tim Holland-Letz; Alexander Harms; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.488
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
Authors: Andrei Mouraviev; Jay Detsky; Arjun Sahgal; Mark Ruschin; Young K Lee; Irene Karam; Chris Heyn; Greg J Stanisz; Anne L Martel Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 12.300