| Literature DB >> 30363632 |
G Feliciani1, F Fioroni2, E Grassi2, M Bertolini2, A Rosca3, G Timon3, M Galaverni3, C Iotti3, A Versari4, M Iori2, P Ciammella3.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: The accurate prediction of prognosis and pattern of failure is crucial for optimizing treatment strategies for patients with cancer, and early evidence suggests that image texture analysis has great potential in predicting outcome both in terms of local control and treatment toxicity. The aim of this study was to assess the value of pretreatment 18F-FDG PET texture analysis for the prediction of treatment failure in primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with concurrent chemoradiation therapy.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30363632 PMCID: PMC6180924 DOI: 10.1155/2018/3574310
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.161
Patients' clinical and demographic data.
| Number of patients (%) | |
|---|---|
|
| 90 |
|
| 60 (22–87) |
| ≥60 years | 52 (58%) |
| <60 years | 38 (42%) |
|
| |
|
| |
| Male | 68 (75%) |
| Female | 22 (15%) |
|
| |
|
| |
| Oral cavity | 4 (4%) |
| Oropharynx | 49 (55%) |
| Hypopharynx | 10 (10%) |
| Nasopharynx | 13 (15%) |
| Larynx | 14 (16%) |
|
| |
|
| |
| T1 | 15 (17%) |
| T2 | 30 (35%) |
| T3 | 29 (33%) |
| T4 | 13 (15%) |
|
| |
|
| |
| N0 | 5 (5%) |
| N1 | 21 (24%) |
| N2 | 59 (66%) |
| N3 | 5 (5%) |
|
| |
|
| |
| III | 32 (35%) |
| IV | 58 (65%) |
|
| |
|
| |
| NED | 62 (69%) |
| RD | 28 (31%) |
|
| |
|
| |
| Alive | 65 (72%) |
| Dead | 25 (28%) |
Univariate model of patients' clinical data with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The number of patients is 90 for both PFS and OS, whereas the number of events is 28 and 25, respectively.
|
| HR | 95% CI for HR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
|
| ||||
| Gender (F vs M) | 0.698 | 1.196 | 0.485 | 2.951 |
| Age | 0.099 | 1.027 | 0.995 | 1.060 |
| Stage (III vs IV) | 0.197 | 1.758 | 0.747 | 4.137 |
| Tumor site (oroph vs other) | 0.914 | 1.043 | 0.488 | 2.227 |
| CHT (No vs Yes) | 0.101 | 0.470 | 0.190 | 1.159 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Gender (F vs M) | 0.038 | 8.495 | 1.149 | 62.820 |
| Age | 0.004 | 1.052 | 1.016 | 1.089 |
| Stage (III vs IV) | 0.169 | 2.010 | 0.797 | 5.070 |
| Tumor site (oropharynx vs others) | 0.772 | 0.886 | 0.391 | 2.009 |
| CHT (No vs Yes) | 0.838 | 0.895 | 0.307 | 2.608 |
Multivariate analysis of the patients' dataset for PFS without (A) and including (B) imaging biomarkers. Harrel c-indexes of the models, which score their prognostic power, are 0.65 and 0.76, respectively. The two c-indexes are significantly different with a p value of 0.01.
|
| HR | 95% CI for HR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
|
| ||||
| Gender (F vs M) | 0.713 | 1.191 | 0.469 | 3.026 |
| Age | 0.426 | 1.014 | 0.979 | 1.050 |
| Stage (III vs IV) | 0.160 | 1.894 | 0.777 | 4.617 |
| Tumor site (oropharynx vs others) | 0.902 | 0.953 | 0.445 | 2.042 |
| CHT (No vs Yes) | 0.176 | 0.489 | 0.173 | 1.378 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Age | 0.254 | 1.02 | 9.86 | 1.06 |
| Stage (III vs IV) | 0.440 | 1.43 | 5.77 | 3.55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Run percentage | 0.176 | 1.97 | 1.87 | 2.07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Coarseness | 0.970 | 4.12 | 2.32 | 7.33 |
| Code similarity | 0.129 | 4.27 | 5.77 | 3.16 |
Multivariate analysis of the patients dataset for OS without (A) and including (B) imaging biomarkers.
|
| HR | 95% CI for HR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
|
| ||||
| Gender (F vs M) |
|
|
|
|
| Age |
|
|
|
|
| Stage (III vs IV) | 0.262 | 1.734 | 0.663 | 4.535 |
| OvsL | 0.895 | 0.937 | 0.395 | 2.029 |
| Novscht | 0.317 | 1.916 | 0.521 | 7.051 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Gender (F vs M) | 0.090 | 5.75 | 7.90 | 4.81 |
| Age |
|
|
|
|
| Stage (III vs IV) | 0.341 | 1.59 | 5.82 | 3.83 |
| LILRE | 0.635 | 7.08 | 9.72 | 8.35 |
| SUL peak | 0.068 | 1.10 | 1.009 | 1.192 |
Figure 1Low-intensity long-run emphasis values calculated on different populations in arbitrary unit of measure: recurrent disease (RD) and no evidence of disease (NED) patients.
Figure 2Detail of the uptake of 2D slices centered in the middle of 2 tumor VOIs. On the left, the slice is taken from a RD patient and on the right from a NED patient. It can be appreciated that a lower value in LILRE produces a more speculated uptake in the tumor, whereas in NED patient, the uptake is more Gaussian like. (a) RD patient. (b) NED patient.
Figure 3Kaplan–Meier survival curves for the two statistically significant predictors emerged from the multivariate Cox regression. In (a), the median value of low-intensity long-run emphasis feature is employed to split the curves of the patients, whereas in (b), the split is performed by using chemotherapy usage (Yes or No).