The incidence of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has been rapidly increasing. Disease stage and smoking history are often used in current clinical trials to select patients for deintensification therapy, but these features lack sufficient accuracy for predicting disease relapse. Our purpose was to develop an imaging signature to assess early response and predict outcomes of OPSCC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 162 OPSCC patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy, equally divided into separate training and validation cohorts with similar clinical characteristics. A robust consensus clustering approach was used to spatially partition the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes into subregions (i.e., habitats) based on 18F-FDG PET and contrast CT imaging. We proposed quantitative image features to characterize the temporal volumetric change of the habitats and peritumoral/nodal tissue between baseline and midtreatment. The reproducibility of these features was evaluated. We developed an imaging signature to predict progression-free survival (PFS) by fitting an L1-regularized Cox regression model. Results: We identified 3 phenotypically distinct intratumoral habitats: metabolically active and heterogeneous, enhancing and heterogeneous, and metabolically inactive and homogeneous. The final Cox model consisted of 4 habitat evolution-based features. In both cohorts, this imaging signature significantly outperformed traditional imaging metrics, including midtreatment metabolic tumor volume for predicting PFS, with a C-index of 0.72 versus 0.67 (training) and 0.66 versus 0.56 (validation). The imaging signature stratified patients into high-risk versus low-risk groups with 2-y PFS rates of 59.1% versus 89.4% (hazard ratio, 4.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-13.4 [training]) and 61.4% versus 87.8% (hazard ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-12.1 [validation]). The imaging signature remained an independent predictor of PFS in multivariable analysis adjusting for stage, human papillomavirus status, and smoking history. Conclusion: The proposed imaging signature allows more accurate prediction of disease progression and, if prospectively validated, may refine OPSCC patient selection for risk-adaptive therapy.
The incidence of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has been rapidly increasing. Disease stage and smoking history are often used in current clinical trials to select patients for deintensification therapy, but these features lack sufficient accuracy for predicting disease relapse. Our purpose was to develop an imaging signature to assess early response and predict outcomes of OPSCC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 162 OPSCC patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy, equally divided into separate training and validation cohorts with similar clinical characteristics. A robust consensus clustering approach was used to spatially partition the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes into subregions (i.e., habitats) based on 18F-FDG PET and contrast CT imaging. We proposed quantitative image features to characterize the temporal volumetric change of the habitats and peritumoral/nodal tissue between baseline and midtreatment. The reproducibility of these features was evaluated. We developed an imaging signature to predict progression-free survival (PFS) by fitting an L1-regularized Cox regression model. Results: We identified 3 phenotypically distinct intratumoral habitats: metabolically active and heterogeneous, enhancing and heterogeneous, and metabolically inactive and homogeneous. The final Cox model consisted of 4 habitat evolution-based features. In both cohorts, this imaging signature significantly outperformed traditional imaging metrics, including midtreatment metabolic tumor volume for predicting PFS, with a C-index of 0.72 versus 0.67 (training) and 0.66 versus 0.56 (validation). The imaging signature stratified patients into high-risk versus low-risk groups with 2-y PFS rates of 59.1% versus 89.4% (hazard ratio, 4.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-13.4 [training]) and 61.4% versus 87.8% (hazard ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-12.1 [validation]). The imaging signature remained an independent predictor of PFS in multivariable analysis adjusting for stage, human papillomavirus status, and smoking history. Conclusion: The proposed imaging signature allows more accurate prediction of disease progression and, if prospectively validated, may refine OPSCC patient selection for risk-adaptive therapy.
Authors: Stefan Klein; Marius Staring; Keelin Murphy; Max A Viergever; Josien P W Pluim Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Brian O'Sullivan; Shao Hui Huang; Jie Su; Adam S Garden; Erich M Sturgis; Kristina Dahlstrom; Nancy Lee; Nadeem Riaz; Xin Pei; Shlomo A Koyfman; David Adelstein; Brian B Burkey; Jeppe Friborg; Claus A Kristensen; Anita B Gothelf; Frank Hoebers; Bernd Kremer; Ernst-Jan Speel; Daniel W Bowles; David Raben; Sana D Karam; Eugene Yu; Wei Xu Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Roberto Berenguer; María Del Rosario Pastor-Juan; Jesús Canales-Vázquez; Miguel Castro-García; María Victoria Villas; Francisco Mansilla Legorburo; Sebastià Sabater Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mu Zhou; Baishali Chaudhury; Lawrence O Hall; Dmitry B Goldgof; Robert J Gillies; Robert A Gatenby Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Stefan Leger; Alex Zwanenburg; Karoline Pilz; Sebastian Zschaeck; Klaus Zöphel; Jörg Kotzerke; Andreas Schreiber; Daniel Zips; Mechthild Krause; Michael Baumann; Esther G C Troost; Christian Richter; Steffen Löck Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-08-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Erqi L Pollom; Jie Song; Benjamin Y Durkee; Sonya Aggarwal; Timothy Bui; Rie von Eyben; Ruijiang Li; David M Brizel; Billy W Loo; Quynh-Thu Le; Wendy Y Hara Journal: Head Neck Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Robert L Ferris; George Blumenschein; Jerome Fayette; Joel Guigay; A Dimitrios Colevas; Lisa Licitra; Kevin Harrington; Stefan Kasper; Everett E Vokes; Caroline Even; Francis Worden; Nabil F Saba; Lara C Iglesias Docampo; Robert Haddad; Tamara Rordorf; Naomi Kiyota; Makoto Tahara; Manish Monga; Mark Lynch; William J Geese; Justin Kopit; James W Shaw; Maura L Gillison Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 91.245
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
Authors: Martin Vallières; Emily Kay-Rivest; Léo Jean Perrin; Xavier Liem; Christophe Furstoss; Hugo J W L Aerts; Nader Khaouam; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan; Chang-Shu Wang; Khalil Sultanem; Jan Seuntjens; Issam El Naqa Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jorge E Jimenez; Dong Dai; Guofan Xu; Ruiyang Zhao; Tengfei Li; Tinsu Pan; Linghua Wang; Yingyan Lin; Zhangyang Wang; David Jaffray; John D Hazle; Homer A Macapinlac; Jia Wu; Yang Lu Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Jia Wu; Chao Li; Michael Gensheimer; Sukhmani Padda; Fumi Kato; Hiroki Shirato; Yiran Wei; Carola-Bibiane Schönlieb; Stephen John Price; David Jaffray; John Heymach; Joel W Neal; Billy W Loo; Heather Wakelee; Maximilian Diehn; Ruijiang Li Journal: Nat Mach Intell Date: 2021-08-09
Authors: Melissa M Chen; Admir Terzic; Anton S Becker; Jason M Johnson; Carol C Wu; Max Wintermark; Christoph Wald; Jia Wu Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2022-09-29
Authors: Mingquan Lin; Jacob F Wynne; Boran Zhou; Tonghe Wang; Yang Lei; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 2.102