| Literature DB >> 30094460 |
E J van Helden1, Y J L Vacher1, W N van Wieringen2, F H P van Velden3, H M W Verheul1, O S Hoekstra4, R Boellaard4, C W Menke-van der Houven van Oordt5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess radiomics features on pre-treatment [18F]FDG positron emission tomography (PET) as potential biomarkers for response and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).Entities:
Keywords: Biomarker; Colorectal cancer; Radiomics; Retrospective clinical trial; Tumour heterogeneity; [18F]FDG PET/CT
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30094460 PMCID: PMC6208805 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-018-4100-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging ISSN: 1619-7070 Impact factor: 9.236
Fig. 1Flow chart of patient inclusion
Patient characteristics
| Total | First-line treatment | Third-line treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. patients | 99 | 52 | 47 |
| Median age (min–max) | 64.7 (22–84) | 65.8 (22–84) | 63.4 (49–82) |
| Male gender | 65.7% | 59.6% | 72.3% |
| Primary tumour | |||
| Right-sided | 27.3% | 30.8% | 23.4% |
| Left-sided | 72.7% | 69.2% | 76.% |
| Mutation status | |||
| RAS | 15.2% | 25.9% | 0% |
| RAS wild-type | 50.5% | 9.6% | 100% |
| Unknown RAS status | 34.3% | 64.5% | 0% |
| BRAF mutated | 4% | 0% | 8.5% |
| BRAF wildtype | 55.6% | 32.7% | 80.9% |
| Unknown BRAF status | 40.4% | 67.3% | 10.6% |
| Location tumour depositions | |||
| Liver metastases | 56.2% | 51.1% | 49.7% |
| Lymph nodes | 14.1% | 17.6% | 22.1% |
| Primary tumour | 7.9% | 9.6% | 2.6% |
| Other | 21.8% | 21.7% | 25.6% |
| Evaluated treatment | |||
| CAPOX-B | 63.5% | – | |
| CAPOX | 28.8% | – | |
| Capecitabine-B | 5.8% | – | |
| Capecitabine | 1.9% | – | |
| Cetuximab | – | 100% | |
| Local treatment | 9% | – | |
| Treatment benefit | |||
| No | 21.2% | 13.5% | 29.8% |
| Yes | 77.8% | 84.6% | 70.2% |
| Unknown | 1% | 1.9% | 0% |
| Time PET treatment (mean days; range) | 12 (61) | 30 (61) | 6 (29) |
| Time CT treatment (mean days; range) | 18 (57) | 16 (56) | 9 (42) |
| RECIST v1.1 | |||
| PD | 22.2% | 11.5% | 34.0% |
| SD | 50.5% | 50.0% | 51.0% |
| PR | 24.2% | 32.7% | 14.9% |
| Unknown | 3.0% | 5.8% | 0% |
| PD at time of analysis | 85.9% | 76.9% | 95.7% |
| Alive at time of analysis | 32.3% | 38.5% | 25.5% |
| Median PFS in months (min–max) | 6.1 (0.8–31.6) | 10.5 (0.8–31.6) | 4.3 (1.1–21.4) |
| Median OS in months (min–max) | 12.9 (1.1–35.2) | 16.1 (1.1–35.2) | 9.0 (1.5–27.6) |
Radiomics versus clinical outcome in first-line treatment
| First-line treatment group | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment benefit | Progression-free survival | Overall survival | |||||||||||
| Yes | No | p | 95% CI | p | 95% CI | p | |||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | HR | Lower | Upper | HR | Lower | Upper | ||||
| Mean SUVmax | 7.28 | 3.67 | 6.90 | 2.33 | 0.80 | 0.98 | 0.86 | 1.10 | 0.69 | 1.06 | 0.93 | 1.20 | 0.38 |
| Mean SUVpeak | 5.56 | 2.67 | 5.55 | 1.82 | 0.99 | 1.03 | 0.91 | 1.16 | 0.69 | 1.08 | 0.96 | 1.23 | 0.21 |
| Mean SUVmean | 4.65 | 2.08 | 4.52 | 1.38 | 0.55 | 0.98 | 0.87 | 1.10 | 0.67 | 1.06 | 0.94 | 1.21 | 0.33 |
| Mean compactness | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.78 | 0.94 | 0.84 | 1.07 | 0.35 | 0.87 | 0.76 | 1.00 | 0.06 |
| Mean sphericity | 0.87 | 0.11 | 0.88 | 0.09 | 0.80 | 0.94 | 0.84 | 1.07 | 0.35 | 0.87 | 0.76 | 1.00 | 0.06 |
| Mean AUC-CSH | 0.74 | 0.04 | 0.73 | 0.02 | 0.55 | 0.86 | 0.76 | 0.97 | 0.02* | 0.77 | 0.66 | 0.89 | <0.01* |
| Mean entropy | 5.27 | 0.14 | 5.38 | 0.12 | 0.04* | 1.10 | 0.97 | 1.25 | 0.14 | 1.01 | 0.89 | 1.16 | 0.84 |
| Mean entropy FXD | 3.64 | 0.67 | 3.72 | 0.52 | 0.77 | 1.02 | 0.90 | 1.16 | 0.75 | 1.09 | 0.95 | 1.25 | 0.20 |
| Mean MATV | 12.05 | 25.68 | 17.05 | 79.75 | 0.06 | 1.15 | 1.03 | 1.28 | 0.01* | 1.22 | 1.07 | 1.40 | <0.01* |
| SUM MATV | 25.41 | 199.93 | 51.46 | 242.16 | 0.14 | 1.14 | 1.02 | 1.29 | 0.02* | 1.19 | 1.04 | 1.36 | 0.01* |
| Mean TLG | 44.54 | 183.14 | 83.66 | 482.52 | 0.07 | 1.16 | 1.03 | 1.30 | 0.02* | 1.22 | 1.06 | 1.41 | 0.01* |
| SUM TLG | 97.67 | 1178.42 | 200.81 | 1461.67 | 0.25 | 1.12 | 1.00 | 1.26 | 0.05* | 1.18 | 1.03 | 1.35 | 0.02* |
Fig. 2a Differences in survival for patients undergoing first-line treatment based on dichotomized data using the 50th percentile of mean AUC-CSH, sum MATV and sum TLG. b Differences in survival for patients undergoing third-line treatment based on dichotomized data mean SUVmax, sum MATV and TLG
Fig. 3AUC-CSH and response on CT for two patents undergoing third-line cetuximab monotherapy
Radiomics versus clinical outcome in third-line treatment
| Third-line treatment group | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment benefit | Progression-free survival | Overall survival | |||||||||||
| Yes | No | p | HR | 95% CI | p | HR | 95% CI | p | |||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | ||||||
| Mean SUVmax | 7.71 | 2.30 | 9.27 | 4.00 | 0.10 | 1.11 | 0.96 | 1.27 | 0.16 | 1.19 | 1.01 | 1.41 | 0.03* |
| Mean SUVpeak | 6.42 | 1.84 | 7.36 | 3.00 | 0.20 | 1.11 | 0.96 | 1.29 | 0.15 | 1.21 | 1.01 | 1.45 | 0.04* |
| Mean SUVmean | 4.81 | 1.45 | 5.53 | 1.76 | 0.16 | 1.07 | 0.95 | 1.20 | 0.27 | 1.11 | 0.97 | 1.28 | 0.15 |
| Mean compactness | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.90 | 0.78 | 1.04 | 0.16 | 0.88 | 0.74 | 1.05 | 0.15 |
| Mean sphericity | 0.71 | 0.16 | 0.61 | 0.21 | 0.10 | 0.90 | 0.78 | 1.04 | 0.17 | 0.88 | 0.74 | 1.05 | 0.15 |
| Mean AUC-CSH | 0.68 | 0.10 | 0.71 | 0.05 | 0.28 | 0.92 | 0.81 | 1.03 | 0.16 | 0.93 | 0.82 | 1.05 | 0.23 |
| Mean entropy | 5.35 | 0.17 | 5.31 | 0.22 | 0.48 | 1.00 | 0.91 | 1.10 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.86 | 1.07 | 0.45 |
| Mean entropy FXD | 3.61 | 0.63 | 4.00 | 0.64 | 0.07 | 1.03 | 0.91 | 1.16 | 0.69 | 1.07 | 0.94 | 1.22 | 0.31 |
| Mean MATV | 32.54 | 95.33 | 30.34 | 90.98 | 0.81 | 1.27 | 1.05 | 1.54 | 0.02* | 1.68 | 1.20 | 2.37 | <0.01* |
| SUM MATV | 160.33 | 289.30 | 156.77 | 160.88 | 0.71 | 1.35 | 1.09 | 1.68 | 0.01* | 2.04 | 1.36 | 3.07 | <0.01* |
| Mean TLG | 187.26 | 471.51 | 175.13 | 615.03 | 0.71 | 1.29 | 1.06 | 1.56 | 0.01* | 1.54 | 1.15 | 2.05 | <0.01* |
| SUM TLG | 773.33 | 1540.94 | 841.75 | 812.74 | 0.51 | 1.27 | 1.06 | 1.53 | 0.01* | 1.80 | 1.24 | 2.61 | <0.01* |
Fig. 4a A heatmap of the cluster analysis results of 10 PET characteristics per lesion in the first-line treatment group demonstrates 3 cluster groups. b Here, the heatmap of the three cluster groups for the third-line treatment group is illustrated
Fig. 5OS for clusters 1, 2 and 3 in the third-line treatment group