Mireia Crispin-Ortuzar1, Aditya Apte2, Milan Grkovski2, Jung Hun Oh2, Nancy Y Lee3, Heiko Schöder4, John L Humm2, Joseph O Deasy2. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: mireia.crispinortuzar@cruk.cam.ac.uk. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hypoxia is a known prognostic factor in head and neck cancer. Hypoxia imaging PET radiotracers such as 18F-FMISO are promising but not widely available. The aim of this study was therefore to design a surrogate for 18F-FMISO TBRmax based on 18F-FDG PET and contrast-enhanced CT radiomics features, and to study its performance in the context of hypoxia-based patient stratification. METHODS: 121 lesions from 75 head and neck cancer patients were used in the analysis. Patients received pre-treatment 18F-FDG and 18F-FMISO PET/CT scans. 79 lesions were used to train a cross-validated LASSO regression model based on radiomics features, while the remaining 42 were held out as an internal test subset. RESULTS: In the training subset, the highest AUC (0.873±0.008) was obtained from a signature combining CT and 18F-FDG PET features. The best performance on the unseen test subset was also obtained from the combined signature, with an AUC of 0.833, while the model based on the 90th percentile of 18F-FDG uptake had a test AUC of 0.756. CONCLUSION: A radiomics signature built from 18F-FDG PET and contrast-enhanced CT features correlates with 18F-FMISO TBRmax in head and neck cancer patients, providing significantly better performance with respect to models based on 18F-FDG PET only. Such a biomarker could potentially be useful to personalize head and neck cancer treatment at centers for which dedicated hypoxia imaging PET radiotracers are unavailable.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Hypoxia is a known prognostic factor in head and neck cancer. Hypoxia imaging PET radiotracers such as 18F-FMISO are promising but not widely available. The aim of this study was therefore to design a surrogate for 18F-FMISOTBRmax based on 18F-FDG PET and contrast-enhanced CT radiomics features, and to study its performance in the context of hypoxia-based patient stratification. METHODS: 121 lesions from 75 head and neck cancerpatients were used in the analysis. Patients received pre-treatment 18F-FDG and 18F-FMISO PET/CT scans. 79 lesions were used to train a cross-validated LASSO regression model based on radiomics features, while the remaining 42 were held out as an internal test subset. RESULTS: In the training subset, the highest AUC (0.873±0.008) was obtained from a signature combining CT and 18F-FDG PET features. The best performance on the unseen test subset was also obtained from the combined signature, with an AUC of 0.833, while the model based on the 90th percentile of 18F-FDG uptake had a test AUC of 0.756. CONCLUSION: A radiomics signature built from 18F-FDG PET and contrast-enhanced CT features correlates with 18F-FMISOTBRmax in head and neck cancerpatients, providing significantly better performance with respect to models based on 18F-FDG PET only. Such a biomarker could potentially be useful to personalize head and neck cancer treatment at centers for which dedicated hypoxia imaging PET radiotracers are unavailable.
Authors: Carole Fakhry; Qiang Zhang; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan; David Rosenthal; Adel El-Naggar; Adam S Garden; Denis Soulieres; Andy Trotti; Vilija Avizonis; John Andrew Ridge; Jonathan Harris; Quynh-Thu Le; Maura Gillison Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Balaji Ganeshan; Vicky Goh; Henry C Mandeville; Quan Sing Ng; Peter J Hoskin; Kenneth A Miles Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Remy Lim; Anne Eaton; Nancy Y Lee; Jeremy Setton; Nisha Ohri; Shyam Rao; Richard Wong; Matthew Fury; Heiko Schöder Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jeremy Setton; Nicola Caria; Jonathan Romanyshyn; Lawrence Koutcher; Suzanne L Wolden; Michael J Zelefsky; Nicholas Rowan; Eric J Sherman; Matthew G Fury; David G Pfister; Richard J Wong; Jatin P Shah; Dennis H Kraus; Weiji Shi; Zhigang Zhang; Karen D Schupak; Daphna Y Gelblum; Shyam D Rao; Nancy Y Lee Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-12-16 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: Stefan Welz; David Mönnich; Christina Pfannenberg; Konstantin Nikolaou; Mathias Reimold; Christian La Fougère; Gerald Reischl; Paul-Stefan Mauz; Frank Paulsen; Markus Alber; Claus Belka; Daniel Zips; Daniela Thorwarth Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Sebastian Sanduleanu; Alexander M A van der Wiel; Relinde I Y Lieverse; Damiënne Marcus; Abdalla Ibrahim; Sergey Primakov; Guangyao Wu; Jan Theys; Ala Yaromina; Ludwig J Dubois; Philippe Lambin Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: John Kang; Tiziana Rancati; Sangkyu Lee; Jung Hun Oh; Sarah L Kerns; Jacob G Scott; Russell Schwartz; Seyoung Kim; Barry S Rosenstein Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Michele Avanzo; Lise Wei; Joseph Stancanello; Martin Vallières; Arvind Rao; Olivier Morin; Sarah A Mattonen; Issam El Naqa Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Andrew Hope; Maikel Verduin; Thomas J Dilling; Ananya Choudhury; Rianne Fijten; Leonard Wee; Hugo Jwl Aerts; Issam El Naqa; Ross Mitchell; Marc Vooijs; Andre Dekker; Dirk de Ruysscher; Alberto Traverso Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 6.639