Laurent Dercle1, Lin Lu1, Philip Lichtenstein1, Hao Yang1, Deling Wang1, Jianguo Zhu1, Feiyun Wu1, Hubert Piessevaux1, Lawrence H Schwartz1, Binsheng Zhao1. 1. Laurent Dercle, Lin Lu, Philip Lichtenstein, Hao Yang, Jianguo Zhu, Feiyun Wu, Lawrence H. Schwartz, and Binsheng Zhao, Columbia University Medical Center, and Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY; Laurent Dercle, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, UMR1015, Villejuif, France; Deling Wang, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China; and Hubert Piessevaux, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: New response patterns to anticancer drugs have led tumor size-based response criteria to shift to also include density measurements. Choi criteria, for instance, categorize antiangiogenic therapy response as a decrease in tumor density > 15% at the portal venous phase (PVP). We studied the effect that PVP timing has on measurement of the density of liver metastases (LM) from colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Pretreatment PVP computed tomography images from 291 patients with LM-CRC from the CRYSTAL trial (Cetuximab Combined With Irinotecan in First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00154102) were included. Four radiologists independently scored the scans' timing according to a three-point scoring system: early, optimal, late PVP. Using this, we developed, by machine learning, a proprietary computer-aided quality-control algorithm to grade PVP timing. The reference standard was a computer-refined consensus. For each patient, we contoured target liver lesions and calculated their mean density. RESULTS: Contrast-product administration data were not recorded in the digital imaging and communications in medicine headers for injection volume (94%), type (93%), and route (76%). The PVP timing was early, optimal, and late in 52, 194, and 45 patients, respectively. The mean (95% CI) accuracy of the radiologists for detection of optimal PVP timing was 81.7% (78.3 to 85.2) and was outperformed by the 88.6% (84.8 to 92.4) computer accuracy. The mean ± standard deviation of LM-CRC density was 68 ± 15 Hounsfield units (HU) overall and 59.5 ± 14.9 HU, 71.4 ± 14.1 HU, 62.4 ± 12.5 HU at early, optimal, and late PVP timing, respectively. LM-CRC density was thus decreased at nonoptimal PVP timing by 14.8%: 16.7% at early PVP ( P < .001) and 12.6% at late PVP ( P < .001). CONCLUSION: Nonoptimal PVP timing should be identified because it significantly decreased tumor density by 14.8%. Our computer-aided quality-control system outperformed the accuracy, reproducibility, and speed of radiologists' visual scoring. PVP-timing scoring could improve the extraction of tumor quantitative imaging biomarkers and the monitoring of anticancer therapy efficacy at the patient and clinical trial levels.
PURPOSE: New response patterns to anticancer drugs have led tumor size-based response criteria to shift to also include density measurements. Choi criteria, for instance, categorize antiangiogenic therapy response as a decrease in tumor density > 15% at the portal venous phase (PVP). We studied the effect that PVP timing has on measurement of the density of liver metastases (LM) from colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Pretreatment PVP computed tomography images from 291 patients with LM-CRC from the CRYSTAL trial (Cetuximab Combined With Irinotecan in First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00154102) were included. Four radiologists independently scored the scans' timing according to a three-point scoring system: early, optimal, late PVP. Using this, we developed, by machine learning, a proprietary computer-aided quality-control algorithm to grade PVP timing. The reference standard was a computer-refined consensus. For each patient, we contoured target liver lesions and calculated their mean density. RESULTS: Contrast-product administration data were not recorded in the digital imaging and communications in medicine headers for injection volume (94%), type (93%), and route (76%). The PVP timing was early, optimal, and late in 52, 194, and 45 patients, respectively. The mean (95% CI) accuracy of the radiologists for detection of optimal PVP timing was 81.7% (78.3 to 85.2) and was outperformed by the 88.6% (84.8 to 92.4) computer accuracy. The mean ± standard deviation of LM-CRC density was 68 ± 15 Hounsfield units (HU) overall and 59.5 ± 14.9 HU, 71.4 ± 14.1 HU, 62.4 ± 12.5 HU at early, optimal, and late PVP timing, respectively. LM-CRC density was thus decreased at nonoptimal PVP timing by 14.8%: 16.7% at early PVP ( P < .001) and 12.6% at late PVP ( P < .001). CONCLUSION: Nonoptimal PVP timing should be identified because it significantly decreased tumor density by 14.8%. Our computer-aided quality-control system outperformed the accuracy, reproducibility, and speed of radiologists' visual scoring. PVP-timing scoring could improve the extraction of tumor quantitative imaging biomarkers and the monitoring of anticancer therapy efficacy at the patient and clinical trial levels.
Authors: Geoffrey R Oxnard; Binsheng Zhao; Camelia S Sima; Michelle S Ginsberg; Leonard P James; Robert A Lefkowitz; Pingzhen Guo; Mark G Kris; Lawrence H Schwartz; Gregory J Riely Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jean-Marie Michot; Renaud Mazeron; Laurent Dercle; Samy Ammari; Charles Canova; Aurelien Marabelle; Shelonitda Rose; Eric Rubin; Eric Deutsch; Jean-Charles Soria; Vincent Ribrag; Antonin Levy Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Eric Van Cutsem; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Claus-Henning Köhne; Volker Heinemann; Sabine Tejpar; Ivan Melezínek; Frank Beier; Christopher Stroh; Philippe Rougier; J Han van Krieken; Fortunato Ciardiello Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christos S Karapetis; Shirin Khambata-Ford; Derek J Jonker; Chris J O'Callaghan; Dongsheng Tu; Niall C Tebbutt; R John Simes; Haji Chalchal; Jeremy D Shapiro; Sonia Robitaille; Timothy J Price; Lois Shepherd; Heather-Jane Au; Christiane Langer; Malcolm J Moore; John R Zalcberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-10-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Haesun Choi; Chuslip Charnsangavej; Silvana de Castro Faria; Eric P Tamm; Robert S Benjamin; Marcella M Johnson; Homer A Macapinlac; Donald A Podoloff Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Laurent Dercle; Lin Lu; Lawrence H Schwartz; Min Qian; Sabine Tejpar; Peter Eggleton; Binsheng Zhao; Hubert Piessevaux Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Laurent Dercle; Matthew Fronheiser; Lin Lu; Shuyan Du; Wendy Hayes; David K Leung; Amit Roy; Julia Wilkerson; Pingzhen Guo; Antonio T Fojo; Lawrence H Schwartz; Binsheng Zhao Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 13.801