Patrick Grossmann1, Vivek Narayan1, Ken Chang1, Rifaquat Rahman1, Lauren Abrey1, David A Reardon1, Lawrence H Schwartz1, Patrick Y Wen1, Brian M Alexander1, Raymond Huang1, Hugo J W L Aerts1. 1. Departments of Radiation Oncology and Radiology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Product Development, Pharma Division, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland; Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Center for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Radiology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anti-angiogenic therapy with bevacizumab is the most widely used treatment option for recurrent glioblastoma, but therapeutic response varies substantially and effective biomarkers for patient selection are not available. To this end, we determine whether novel quantitative radiomic strategies on the basis of MRI have the potential to noninvasively stratify survival and progression in this patient population. METHODS: In an initial cohort of 126 patients, we identified a distinct set of features representative of the radiographic phenotype on baseline (pretreatment) MRI. These selected features were evaluated on a second cohort of 165 patients from the multicenter BRAIN trial with prospectively acquired clinical and imaging data. Features were evaluated in terms of prognostic value for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and progression within 3, 6, and 9 months using baseline imaging and first follow-up imaging at 6 weeks posttreatment initiation. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis of features derived at baseline imaging resulted in significant stratification of OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.5; log-rank P = 0.001) and PFS (HR = 4.5; log-rank P = 2.1 × 10-5) in validation data. These stratifications were stronger compared with clinical or volumetric covariates (permutation test false discovery rate [FDR] <0.05). Univariable analysis of a prognostic textural heterogeneity feature (information correlation) derived from postcontrast T1-weighted imaging revealed significantly higher scores for patients who progressed within 3 months (Wilcoxon test P = 8.8 × 10-8). Generally, features derived from postcontrast T1-weighted imaging yielded higher prognostic power compared with precontrast enhancing T2-weighted imaging. CONCLUSION: Radiomics provides prognostic value for survival and progression in patients with recurrent glioblastoma receiving bevacizumab treatment. These results could lead to the development of quantitative pretreatment biomarkers to predict benefit from bevacizumab using standard of care imaging.
BACKGROUND: Anti-angiogenic therapy with bevacizumab is the most widely used treatment option for recurrent glioblastoma, but therapeutic response varies substantially and effective biomarkers for patient selection are not available. To this end, we determine whether novel quantitative radiomic strategies on the basis of MRI have the potential to noninvasively stratify survival and progression in this patient population. METHODS: In an initial cohort of 126 patients, we identified a distinct set of features representative of the radiographic phenotype on baseline (pretreatment) MRI. These selected features were evaluated on a second cohort of 165 patients from the multicenter BRAIN trial with prospectively acquired clinical and imaging data. Features were evaluated in terms of prognostic value for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and progression within 3, 6, and 9 months using baseline imaging and first follow-up imaging at 6 weeks posttreatment initiation. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis of features derived at baseline imaging resulted in significant stratification of OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.5; log-rank P = 0.001) and PFS (HR = 4.5; log-rank P = 2.1 × 10-5) in validation data. These stratifications were stronger compared with clinical or volumetric covariates (permutation test false discovery rate [FDR] <0.05). Univariable analysis of a prognostic textural heterogeneity feature (information correlation) derived from postcontrast T1-weighted imaging revealed significantly higher scores for patients who progressed within 3 months (Wilcoxon test P = 8.8 × 10-8). Generally, features derived from postcontrast T1-weighted imaging yielded higher prognostic power compared with precontrast enhancing T2-weighted imaging. CONCLUSION: Radiomics provides prognostic value for survival and progression in patients with recurrent glioblastoma receiving bevacizumab treatment. These results could lead to the development of quantitative pretreatment biomarkers to predict benefit from bevacizumab using standard of care imaging.
Authors: Whitney B Pope; Hyun J Kim; Jing Huo; Jeffry Alger; Matthew S Brown; David Gjertson; Victor Sai; Jonathan R Young; Leena Tekchandani; Timothy Cloughesy; Paul S Mischel; Albert Lai; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Syed Rahmanuddin; Jonathan Goldin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Philipp Kickingereder; Michael Götz; John Muschelli; Antje Wick; Ulf Neuberger; Russell T Shinohara; Martin Sill; Martha Nowosielski; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Alexander Radbruch; Wolfgang Wick; Martin Bendszus; Klaus H Maier-Hein; David Bonekamp Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Kathleen M Schmainda; Melissa Prah; Jennifer Connelly; Scott D Rand; Raymond G Hoffman; Wade Mueller; Mark G Malkin Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Mark R Gilbert; James J Dignam; Terri S Armstrong; Jeffrey S Wefel; Deborah T Blumenthal; Michael A Vogelbaum; Howard Colman; Arnab Chakravarti; Stephanie Pugh; Minhee Won; Robert Jeraj; Paul D Brown; Kurt A Jaeckle; David Schiff; Volker W Stieber; David G Brachman; Maria Werner-Wasik; Ivo W Tremont-Lukats; Erik P Sulman; Kenneth D Aldape; Walter J Curran; Minesh P Mehta Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christina Schaub; Julia Tichy; Niklas Schäfer; Kea Franz; Frederic Mack; Michel Mittelbronn; Sied Kebir; Anna-Luisa Thiepold; Andreas Waha; Natalie Filmann; Mohammed Banat; Rolf Fimmers; Joachim P Steinbach; Ulrich Herrlinger; Johannes Rieger; Martin Glas; Oliver Bähr Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Jigisha P Thakkar; Therese A Dolecek; Craig Horbinski; Quinn T Ostrom; Donita D Lightner; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; John L Villano Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Martin J B Taphoorn; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Anouk Allgeier; Barbara Fisher; Karl Belanger; Peter Hau; Alba A Brandes; Johanna Gijtenbeek; Christine Marosi; Charles J Vecht; Karima Mokhtari; Pieter Wesseling; Salvador Villa; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Thierry Gorlia; Michael Weller; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; René-Olivier Mirimanoff Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 41.316
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: William Rogers; Sithin Thulasi Seetha; Turkey A G Refaee; Relinde I Y Lieverse; Renée W Y Granzier; Abdalla Ibrahim; Simon A Keek; Sebastian Sanduleanu; Sergey P Primakov; Manon P L Beuque; Damiënne Marcus; Alexander M A van der Wiel; Fadila Zerka; Cary J G Oberije; Janita E van Timmeren; Henry C Woodruff; Philippe Lambin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Philipp Kickingereder; Ulf Neuberger; David Bonekamp; Paula L Piechotta; Michael Götz; Antje Wick; Martin Sill; Annekathrin Kratz; Russell T Shinohara; David T W Jones; Alexander Radbruch; John Muschelli; Andreas Unterberg; Jürgen Debus; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Christel Herold-Mende; Stefan Pfister; Andreas von Deimling; Wolfgang Wick; David Capper; Klaus H Maier-Hein; Martin Bendszus Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: M Iv; M Zhou; K Shpanskaya; S Perreault; Z Wang; E Tranvinh; B Lanzman; S Vajapeyam; N A Vitanza; P G Fisher; Y J Cho; S Laughlin; V Ramaswamy; M D Taylor; S H Cheshier; G A Grant; T Young Poussaint; O Gevaert; K W Yeom Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: R A Manneh Kopp; J M Sepúlveda-Sánchez; Y Ruano; O Toldos; A Pérez Núñez; D Cantero; A Hilario; A Ramos; G de Velasco; P Sánchez-Gómez; A Hernández-Laín Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: E George; E Flagg; K Chang; H X Bai; H J Aerts; M Vallières; D A Reardon; R Y Huang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 3.825