| Literature DB >> 29464076 |
Doo-Sik Kong1,2,3, Junhyung Kim2, Gyuha Ryu3, Hye-Jin You2,3, Joon Kyung Sung4, Yong Hee Han5, Hye-Mi Shin2,3, In-Hee Lee2, Sung-Tae Kim6, Chul-Kee Park7, Seung Hong Choi8, Jeong Won Choi1, Ho Jun Seol1, Jung-Il Lee1, Do-Hyun Nam1,2,3.
Abstract
Quantitative imaging biomarkers have increasingly emerged in the field of research utilizing available imaging modalities. We aimed to identify good surrogate radiomic features that can represent genetic changes of tumors, thereby establishing noninvasive means for predicting treatment outcome. From May 2012 to June 2014, we retrospectively identified 65 patients with treatment-naïve glioblastoma with available clinical information from the Samsung Medical Center data registry. Preoperative MR imaging data were obtained for all 65 patients with primary glioblastoma. A total of 82 imaging features including first-order statistics, volume, and size features, were semi-automatically extracted from structural and physiologic images such as apparent diffusion coefficient and perfusion images. Using commercially available software, NordicICE, we performed quantitative imaging analysis and collected the dataset composed of radiophenotypic parameters. Unsupervised clustering methods revealed that the radiophenotypic dataset was composed of three clusters. Each cluster represented a distinct molecular classification of glioblastoma; classical type, proneural and neural types, and mesenchymal type. These clusters also reflected differential clinical outcomes. We found that extracted imaging signatures does not represent copy number variation and somatic mutation. Quantitative radiomic features provide a potential evidence to predict molecular phenotype and treatment outcome. Radiomic profiles represents transcriptomic phenotypes more well.Entities:
Keywords: classification; glioblastoma; phenotypes; quantitative imaging; radiomic
Year: 2018 PMID: 29464076 PMCID: PMC5814216 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23975
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
The parameters used in this study
| Feature | No. | Parameters | Image sequence | Definitions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume | 1 | T1CE_PIXEL | T1CE | Number of pixel intensity based on ROI of T1CE |
| 2 | T1CE_AREA | T1CE | Mask area (cm2) based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 3 | T1CE_VOL | T1CE | Mask volume (mL) based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 4 | T2FLAIR_PIXEL | T2FLAIR | Number of pixel intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 5 | T2FLAIR_AREA | T2FLAIR | Mask area (cm2) based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 6 | T2FALIR_VOL | T2FLAIR | Mask volume (mL) based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 7 | rADCnT1_PIXEL | rADC | Number of pixel intensity on T1CE ROI | |
| 8 | rADCnT1_AREA | rADC | Mask area (cm2) on T1CE ROI | |
| 9 | rADCnT1_VOL | rADC | Mask vol (mL) on T1CE ROI | |
| 10 | rADCnT2_PIXEL | rADC | Number of pixel intensity on T2FLAIR ROI | |
| 11 | rADCnT2_AREA | rADC | Mask area (cm2) on T2FLAIR ROI | |
| rADCnT2_VOL | rADC | Mask vol (mL) on T2FLAIR ROI | ||
| Cerebral blood flow | 13 | rCBFnT1_MEAN | rCBF | Mean based on ROI of T1CE |
| 14 | rCBFnT1_MEDIAN | rCBF | Median based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 15 | rCBFnT1_SD | rCBF | SD based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 16 | rCBFnT1_X5P | rCBF | 5 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T1CE | |
| 17 | rCBFnT1_X95P | rCBF | 95 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T1CE | |
| 18 | rCBFnT1_Q1 | rCBF | 25 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T1CE | |
| 19 | rCBFnT1_Q3 | rCBF | 75 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T1CE | |
| 20 | rCBFnT2_MEAN | rCBF | Mean based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 21 | rCBFnT2_MEDIAN | rCBF | Median based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 22 | rCBFnT2_SD | rCBF | SD based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 23 | rCBFnT2_X5P | rCBF | 5 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 24 | rCBFnT2_X95P | rCBF | 95 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 25 | rCBFnT2_Q1 | rCBF | 25 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 26 | rCBFnT2_Q3 | rCBF | 75 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| Cerebral blood volume | 27 | rCBVnT1_MEAN | rCBV | Mean based on ROI of T1CE |
| 28 | rCBVnT1_MEDIAN | rCBV | Median based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 29 | rCBVnT1_SD | rCBV | SD based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 30 | rCBVnT1_X5P | rCBV | 5 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T1CE | |
| 31 | rCBVnT1_X95P | rCBV | 95 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T1CE | |
| 32 | rCBVnT1_Q1 | rCBV | 25 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T1CE | |
| 33 | rCBVnT1_Q3 | rCBV | 75 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 34 | rCBVnT2_MEAN | rCBV | Mean based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 35 | rCBVnT2_MEDIAN | rCBV | Median based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 36 | rCBVnT2_SD | rCBV | SD based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 37 | rCBVnT2_X5P | rCBV | 5 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 38 | rCBVnT2_X95P | rCBV | 95 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 39 | rCBVnT2_Q1 | rCBV | 25 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 40 | rCBVnT2_Q3 | rCBV | 75 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| Mean transit time | 41 | MTTnT1_MEAN | MTT | Mean based on ROI of T1CE |
| 42 | MTTnT1_MEDIAN | MTT | Median based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 43 | MTTnT1_SD | MTT | SD based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 44 | MTTnT1_X5P | MTT | 5 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 45 | MTTnT1_X95P | MTT | 95 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 46 | MTTnT1_Q1 | MTT | 25 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 47 | MTTnT1_Q3 | MTT | 75 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 48 | MTTnT2_MEAN | MTT | Mean based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 49 | MTTnT2_MEDIAN | MTT | Median based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 50 | MTTnT2_SD | MTT | SD based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 51 | MTTnT2_X5P | MTT | 5 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 52 | MTTnT2_X95P | MTT | 95 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 53 | MTTnT2_Q1 | MTT | 25 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 54 | MTTnT2_Q3 | MTT | 75 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| Time to perfusion | 55 | TTPnT1_MEAN | TTP | Mean based on ROI of T1CE |
| 56 | TTPnT1_MEDIAN | TTP | Median based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 57 | TTPnT1_SD | TTP | SD based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 58 | TTPnT1_X5P | TTP | 5 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 59 | TTPnT1_X95P | TTP | 95 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 60 | TTPnT1_Q1 | TTP | 25 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 61 | TTPnT1_Q3 | TTP | 75 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 62 | TTPnT2_MEAN | TTP | Mean based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 63 | TTPnT2_MEDIAN | TTP | Median based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 64 | TTPnT2_SD | TTP | SD based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 65 | TTPnT2_X5P | TTP | 5 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 66 | TTPnT2_X95P | TTP | 95 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 67 | TTPnT2_Q1 | TTP | 25 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 68 | TTPnT2_Q3 | TTP | 75 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| Apparent diffusion coefficient | 69 | rADCnT1_MEAN | rADC | Mean based on ROI of T1CE |
| 70 | rADCnT1_MEDIAN | rADC | Median based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 71 | rADCnT1_SD | rADC | SD based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 72 | rADCnT1_X5P | rADC | 5 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 73 | rADCnT1_X95P | rADC | 95 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 74 | rADCnT1_Q1 | rADC | 25 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 75 | rADCnT1_Q3 | rADC | 75 percentile of total intensity based on ROI of T1CE | |
| 76 | rADCnT2_MEAN | rADC | Mean based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 77 | rADCnT2_MEDIAN | rADC | Median based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 78 | rADCnT2_SD | rADC | SD based on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 79 | rADCnT2_X5P | rADC | 5 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 80 | rADCnT2_X95P | rADC | 95 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 81 | rADCnT2_Q1 | rADC | 25 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR | |
| 82 | rADCnT2_Q3 | rADC | 75 percentile of total intensity on ROI of T2FLAIR |
Figure 1Three radiomic clusters
(A) Similarity matrix based on Pearson’s correlation coefficients among 65 glioblastoma cases. (B) Gene-set enrichment analysis (GSEA) results for each radiomic cluster. Identified associations are enriched for certain categories of genomic features and radiomic phenotypes, evaluated by the adjusted p-values from the Fisher’s exact tests.
Figure 2Overview of identified statistically significant associations
(A) Heatmap of RNA sequencing data demonstrating correlations between transcriptomic profile and radiomic signatures. (B) Correlation matrix between radiomic data and gene expression profiles are plotted in the heatmap. Associations were deemed as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value ≤ 0.01.
Figure 3Genetic profiles of each radiomic cluster for representative genes
I means group 1, II means group 2, and III means group 3. The number of patients with exactly the same mutation and CNV was quite small and might not provide reliable statistics. (A) Copy number alterations (log2CN). (B) Somatic mutations.
Demographic data of 65 glioblastomas
| Total (n=65) | |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 57.7 (29.0-74.0) |
| Gender (male) | 35 (53.8) |
| IDH | |
| IDH-mutant | 5 (7.7) |
| IDH-wild type | 60 (92.3) |
| 24/ 41 | |
| KPS (%) | 89.0 ± 14.3 |
| Overall survival (months) | 13.2(95% CI 9.3-17.6) |
Values are number (%), median (range), or mean ± SD.