Stephen R Bowen1,2, William T C Yuh2, Daniel S Hippe2, Wei Wu3, Savannah C Partridge2, Saba Elias4, Guang Jia5, Zhibin Huang6, George A Sandison1, Dennis Nelson7, Michael V Knopp4, Simon S Lo1, Paul E Kinahan2, Nina A Mayr1. 1. University of Washington School of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. University of Washington School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Seattle, Washington, USA. 3. Tongji Hospital of Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Department of Radiology, Wuhan, Hubei, P.R. China. 4. Ohio State University, Department of Radiology, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 5. Louisiana State University, Department of Physics, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. 6. East Carolina University, Department of Radiation Oncology, Greenville, North Carolina, USA. 7. MIM Software, Inc, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robust approaches to quantify tumor heterogeneity are needed to provide early decision support for precise individualized therapy. PURPOSE: To conduct a technical exploration of longitudinal changes in tumor heterogeneity patterns on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and FDG positron emission tomography / computed tomography (PET/CT), and their association to radiation therapy (RT) response in cervical cancer. STUDY TYPE: Prospective observational study with longitudinal MRI and PET/CT pre-RT, early-RT (2 weeks), and mid-RT (5 weeks). POPULATION: Twenty-one FIGO IB2 -IVA cervical cancer patients receiving definitive external beam RT and brachytherapy. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T, precontrast axial T1 -weighted, axial and sagittal T2 -weighted, sagittal DWI (multi-b values), sagittal DCE MRI (<10 sec temporal resolution), postcontrast axial T1 -weighted. ASSESSMENT: Response assessment 1 month after completion of treatment by a board-certified radiation oncologist from manually delineated tumor volume changes. STATISTICAL TESTS: Intensity histogram (IH) quantiles (DCE SI10% and DWI ADC10% , FDG-PET SUVmax ) and distribution moments (mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis) were extracted. Differences in IH features between timepoints and modalities were evaluated by Skillings-Mack tests with Holm's correction. Area under receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Mann-Whitney testing was performed to discriminate treatment response using IH features. RESULTS: Tumor IH means and quantiles varied significantly during RT (SUVmean : ↓28-47%, SUVmax : ↓30-59%, SImean : ↑8-30%, SI10% : ↑8-19%, ADCmean : ↑16%, P < 0.02 for each). Among IH heterogeneity features, FDG-PET SUVCoV (↓16-30%, P = 0.011) and DW-MRI ADCskewness decreased (P = 0.001). FDG-PET SUVCoV was higher than DCE-MRI SICoV and DW-MRI ADCCoV at baseline (P < 0.001) and 2 weeks (P = 0.010). FDG-PET SUVkurtosis was lower than DCE-MRI SIkurtosis and DW-MRI ADCkurtosis at baseline (P = 0.001). Some IH features appeared to associate with favorable tumor response, including large early RT changes in DW-MRI ADCskewness (AUC = 0.86). DATA CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings show tumor heterogeneity was variable between patients, modalities, and timepoints. Radiomic assessment of changing tumor heterogeneity has the potential to personalize treatment and power outcome prediction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1388-1396.
BACKGROUND: Robust approaches to quantify tumor heterogeneity are needed to provide early decision support for precise individualized therapy. PURPOSE: To conduct a technical exploration of longitudinal changes in tumor heterogeneity patterns on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and FDG positron emission tomography / computed tomography (PET/CT), and their association to radiation therapy (RT) response in cervical cancer. STUDY TYPE: Prospective observational study with longitudinal MRI and PET/CT pre-RT, early-RT (2 weeks), and mid-RT (5 weeks). POPULATION: Twenty-one FIGO IB2 -IVAcervical cancerpatients receiving definitive external beam RT and brachytherapy. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T, precontrast axial T1 -weighted, axial and sagittal T2 -weighted, sagittal DWI (multi-b values), sagittal DCE MRI (<10 sec temporal resolution), postcontrast axial T1 -weighted. ASSESSMENT: Response assessment 1 month after completion of treatment by a board-certified radiation oncologist from manually delineated tumor volume changes. STATISTICAL TESTS: Intensity histogram (IH) quantiles (DCESI10% and DWI ADC10% , FDG-PET SUVmax ) and distribution moments (mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis) were extracted. Differences in IH features between timepoints and modalities were evaluated by Skillings-Mack tests with Holm's correction. Area under receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Mann-Whitney testing was performed to discriminate treatment response using IH features. RESULTS:Tumor IH means and quantiles varied significantly during RT (SUVmean : ↓28-47%, SUVmax : ↓30-59%, SImean : ↑8-30%, SI10% : ↑8-19%, ADCmean : ↑16%, P < 0.02 for each). Among IH heterogeneity features, FDG-PET SUVCoV (↓16-30%, P = 0.011) and DW-MRI ADCskewness decreased (P = 0.001). FDG-PET SUVCoV was higher than DCE-MRI SICoV and DW-MRI ADCCoV at baseline (P < 0.001) and 2 weeks (P = 0.010). FDG-PET SUVkurtosis was lower than DCE-MRI SIkurtosis and DW-MRI ADCkurtosis at baseline (P = 0.001). Some IH features appeared to associate with favorable tumor response, including large early RT changes in DW-MRI ADCskewness (AUC = 0.86). DATA CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings show tumor heterogeneity was variable between patients, modalities, and timepoints. Radiomic assessment of changing tumor heterogeneity has the potential to personalize treatment and power outcome prediction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1388-1396.
Authors: Julie K Schwarz; Barry A Siegel; Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kranthi Marella Panth; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Natasja G Lieuwes; Ala Yaromina; Ludwig Dubois; Philippe Lambin Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Elizabeth A Kidd; Maria Thomas; Barry A Siegel; Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Perry W Grigsby; Israel Zighelboim; Matthew A Powell; David G Mutch; Julie K Schwarz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Hui Li; Yitan Zhu; Elizabeth S Burnside; Erich Huang; Karen Drukker; Katherine A Hoadley; Cheng Fan; Suzanne D Conzen; Margarita Zuley; Jose M Net; Elizabeth Sutton; Gary J Whitman; Elizabeth Morris; Charles M Perou; Yuan Ji; Maryellen L Giger Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2016-05-11
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
Authors: Matthew M Harkenrider; Merry Jennifer Markham; Don S Dizon; Anuja Jhingran; Ritu Salani; Ramy K Serour; Jean Lynn; Elise C Kohn Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stephen R Bowen; Daniel S Hippe; W Art Chaovalitwongse; Chunyan Duan; Phawis Thammasorn; Xiao Liu; Robert S Miyaoka; Hubert J Vesselle; Paul E Kinahan; Ramesh Rengan; Jing Zeng Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 12.531