| Literature DB >> 28575105 |
Xiaojian Chen1, Kiyoko Oshima2, Diane Schott1, Hui Wu1,3, William Hall1, Yingqiu Song1,4, Yalan Tao1,5, Dingjie Li1,3, Cheng Zheng6, Paul Knechtges7, Beth Erickson1, X Allen Li1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In an effort for early assessment of treatment response, we investigate radiation induced changes in quantitative CT features of tumor during the delivery of chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for pancreatic cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28575105 PMCID: PMC5456365 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178961
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Patient characteristics, treatment methods and outcome data.
| Patient | Gender | Age (y) | Tumor Stage | Pre-radiation Chemo | Concurrent Chemo | Pathology Response Grade | Local Recurrence/ Metastatic Status | ΔMCTN (HU) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | 59 | resectable | No | Gemcitabine | NA | No/Yes | -5.5 |
| 2 | F | 58 | resectable | No | Gemcitabine | 3 | No/Yes | -1.1 |
| 3 | M | 56 | bordline resectable | Yes | Gemcitabine | NA | No/No | -3.6 |
| 4 | F | 65 | resectable | No | Gemcitabine | 1 | No/Yes | -5.8 |
| 5 | F | 76 | resectable | No | Gemcitabine | NA | No/No | -8.2 |
| 6 | M | 75 | bordline resectable | Yes | 5-FU | 1 | No/No | -15.8 |
| 7 | M | 58 | nonresectable | No | Capecitabine | NA | No/No | 0.1 |
| 8 | M | 59 | resectable | No | Gemcitabine | NA | No/Yes | -3.2 |
| 9 | M | 76 | resectable | No | Gemcitabine | 0 | No/No | -8.8 |
| 10 | F | 76 | nonresectable | Yes | Capecitabine | 0 | Yes/No | 1.0 |
| 11 | M | 72 | resectable | No | Gemcitabine | 1 | No/No | -8.0 |
| 12 | F | 74 | resectable | No | Gemcitabine | 1 | No/No | -8.1 |
| 13 | F | 57 | bordline resectable | Yes | Capecitabine | 2 | No/Yes | -4.1 |
| 14 | M | 75 | bordline resectable | No | Gemcitabine | 1 | No/No | -0.3 |
| 15 | M | 58 | bordline resectable | Yes | Gemcitabine | 3 | Yes/Yes | -9.2 |
| 16 | M | 56 | bordline resectable | Yes | 5-FU | 2 | No/No | 3.9 |
| 17 | F | 69 | bordline resectable | Yes | Gemcitabine | 2 | No/No | -0.7 |
| 18 | M | 65 | resectable | No | Gemcitabine | 3 | No/Yes | -4.8 |
| 19 | F | 66 | resectable | No | Capecitabine | 3 | Yes/No | -4.9 |
| 20 | M | 64 | bordline resectable | Yes | Gemcitabine | 1 | No/No | -7.2 |
NA: Not applicable as no surgery was performed for the patient.
Fig 1An example case.
(a) a comparison of axial CT slice with contour of the GTV (pancreas head) from the daily CTs for the 1st and 26th fractions, (b) HU histograms of the GTVs for the 1st and 26th fraction (the histograms were normalized and the actual ratio of volumes was 1.73:1), and (c) the change of mean CTN in GTV with elapsed time through the course of treatment.
Fig 2Changes in MCTN and other metrics with treatment.
(a) The MCTN (solid red) and relative volume (dashed blue) changes from the 1st fraction to the 26th fraction for the 20 patients; (b) the average MCTN changes over all patients with respect to the elapsed time of treatment for the GTV, spinal cord, and blood in aorta. The uncertainty region (shaded) of the machine measurement was defined with the 95% confidence interval within the ±2σ dash lines determined from phantom measurement over 40 months; (c) the average changes in PP, volume, skewness, and kurtosis over all patients with respect to the elapsed time of treatment for the GTV.
Results of student’s paired two-tailed t-tests between the first week and the remaining weeks of the treatment for 6 histogram metrics as well as MCTNs for the spinal cord and the blood in the abdominal aorta.
The significant results are bolded.
| 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCTN (GTV) | 0.18 | ||||
| MCTN (Cord) | 0.57 | 0.51 | 0.075 | 0.27 | 0.095 |
| MCTN (Blood) | 0.28 | ||||
| PP | 0.19 | ||||
| Volume | 0.12 | ||||
| SD | 0.67 | 0.21 | 0.63 | 0.73 | 0.63 |
| Skewness | 0.26 | 0.095 | |||
| Kurtosis | 0.23 |
Fig 3The changes in CTN histograms and metrics for three typical patients.
The CTN histograms of the GTVs for the first day of each week along with the changes of the eight metrics with respect to the elapsed treatment time for two good pathologic response patients: (a) Patient 9 and (b) Patient 20, and for one with poor response (c) Patient 3.
Fig 4Comparisons of the average changes of for the good- and poor-response groups.
(a) moments of histogram including MCTN, SD, skewness, kurtosis, and (b) volume in GTV from the first RT fraction during the course of CRT. The error bar is the standard error of the values of the cohort.
Fig 5The correlation of the change and initial value of MCTN.
The straight line is the best linear fit.