Zhen Hou1, Yang Yang2, Shuangshuang Li2, Jing Yan2, Wei Ren2, Juan Liu2, Kangxin Wang2, Baorui Liu2, Suiren Wan1. 1. State Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, Laboratory for Medical Electronics, School of Biological Sciences and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China. 2. The Comprehensive Cancer Centre of Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University & Clinical Cancer Institute of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210000, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine the feasibility of radiomic analysis for predicting the therapeutic response of gastric carcinoma (GC) with abdominal cavity metastasis (GCACM) to pulsed low dose rate radiotherapy (PLDRT) using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) images. METHODS: Pretreatment CECT images of 43 GCACM patients were analyzed. Patients with complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) were considered responders, while stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) as non-responders. A total of 1,117 image features were quantified from tumor region that segmented from arterial phase CT images. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and absolute correlation coefficient (ACC) were calculated for selecting influential feature subset. The capability of each influential feature on treatment response classification was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Moreover, artificial neural network (ANN) and k-nearest neighbor (KNN) predictive models were constructed based on the training set (18 responders, 14 non-responders) and the testing set (6 responders, 5 non-responders) validated the reliability of the models. Comparison between the performances of the models was performed by using McNemar's test. RESULTS: The analyses showed that 6 features (1 first order-based, 1 texture-based, 1 LoG-based, and 3 wavelet-based) were significantly different between responders and non-responders (AUCs range from 0.686 to 0.728). Both two prediction models based on features extracted from CECT showed potential in predicting the treatment response with higher accuracies (ANN: 0.714, KNN: 0.749 for the training set; ANN: 0.816, KNN: 0.816 for the testing set). No statistical difference was observed between the performance of ANN and KNN (P=0.999). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment radiomic analysis using CECT can potentially provide important information regarding the therapeutic response to PLDRT for GCACM, improving risk stratification.
BACKGROUND: To determine the feasibility of radiomic analysis for predicting the therapeutic response of gastric carcinoma (GC) with abdominal cavity metastasis (GCACM) to pulsed low dose rate radiotherapy (PLDRT) using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) images. METHODS: Pretreatment CECT images of 43 GCACM patients were analyzed. Patients with complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) were considered responders, while stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) as non-responders. A total of 1,117 image features were quantified from tumor region that segmented from arterial phase CT images. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and absolute correlation coefficient (ACC) were calculated for selecting influential feature subset. The capability of each influential feature on treatment response classification was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Moreover, artificial neural network (ANN) and k-nearest neighbor (KNN) predictive models were constructed based on the training set (18 responders, 14 non-responders) and the testing set (6 responders, 5 non-responders) validated the reliability of the models. Comparison between the performances of the models was performed by using McNemar's test. RESULTS: The analyses showed that 6 features (1 first order-based, 1 texture-based, 1 LoG-based, and 3 wavelet-based) were significantly different between responders and non-responders (AUCs range from 0.686 to 0.728). Both two prediction models based on features extracted from CECT showed potential in predicting the treatment response with higher accuracies (ANN: 0.714, KNN: 0.749 for the training set; ANN: 0.816, KNN: 0.816 for the testing set). No statistical difference was observed between the performance of ANN and KNN (P=0.999). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment radiomic analysis using CECT can potentially provide important information regarding the therapeutic response to PLDRT for GCACM, improving risk stratification.
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: Francesco De Cobelli; Francesco Giganti; Elena Orsenigo; Michaela Cellina; Antonio Esposito; Giulia Agostini; Luca Albarello; Elena Mazza; Alessandro Ambrosi; Carlo Socci; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Gregory M Richards; Wolfgang A Tomé; H Ian Robins; James A Stewart; James S Welsh; Peter A Mahler; Steven P Howard Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-04-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: David Y Lee; John L Chunta; Sean S Park; Jiayi Huang; Alvaro A Martinez; Inga S Grills; Sarah A Krueger; George D Wilson; Brian Marples Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Joost J M van Griethuysen; Andriy Fedorov; Chintan Parmar; Ahmed Hosny; Nicole Aucoin; Vivek Narayan; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin; Steve Pieper; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 12.701