Maliazurina Saad1, Ik Hyun Lee2, Tae-Sun Choi3. 1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1406 W Green St, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA. mbs@illinois.edu. 2. Korea Polytechnic University, Siheung, Korea. 3. Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology, Gwangju, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Imaging biomarkers (IBMs) are increasingly investigated as prognostic indicators. IBMs might be capable of assisting treatment selection by providing useful insights into tumor-specific factors in a non-invasive manner. METHODS: We investigated six three-dimensional shape-based IBMs: eccentricities between (I) intermediate-major axis (Eimaj), (II) intermediate-minor axis (Eimin), (III) major-minor axis (Emj-mn) and volumetric index of (I) sphericity (VioS), (II) flattening (VioF), (III) elongating (VioE). Additionally, we investigated previously established two-dimensional shape IBMs: eccentricity (E), index of sphericity (IoS), and minor-to-major axis length (Mn_Mj). IBMs were compared in terms of their predictive performance for 5-year overall survival in two independent cohorts of patients with lung cancer. Cohort 1 received surgical excision, while cohort 2 received radiation therapy alone or chemo-radiation therapy. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed. Correlations with clinical parameters were evaluated using analysis of variance. IBM reproducibility was assessed using concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs). RESULTS: E was associated with reduced survival in cohort 1 (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.664). Eimin and VioF were associated with reduced survival in cohort 2 (HR 1.477 and 1.701). VioS was associated with reduced survival in cohorts 1 and 2 (HR 1.758 and 1.472). Spherical tumors correlated with shorter survival durations than did irregular tumors (median survival difference: 1.21 and 0.35 years in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively). VioS was a significant predictor of survival in multivariate analyses of both cohorts. All IBMs showed good reproducibility (CCC ranged between 0.86-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: In both investigated cohorts, VioS successfully linked shape morphology to patient survival.
PURPOSE: Imaging biomarkers (IBMs) are increasingly investigated as prognostic indicators. IBMs might be capable of assisting treatment selection by providing useful insights into tumor-specific factors in a non-invasive manner. METHODS: We investigated six three-dimensional shape-based IBMs: eccentricities between (I) intermediate-major axis (Eimaj), (II) intermediate-minor axis (Eimin), (III) major-minor axis (Emj-mn) and volumetric index of (I) sphericity (VioS), (II) flattening (VioF), (III) elongating (VioE). Additionally, we investigated previously established two-dimensional shape IBMs: eccentricity (E), index of sphericity (IoS), and minor-to-major axis length (Mn_Mj). IBMs were compared in terms of their predictive performance for 5-year overall survival in two independent cohorts of patients with lung cancer. Cohort 1 received surgical excision, while cohort 2 received radiation therapy alone or chemo-radiation therapy. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed. Correlations with clinical parameters were evaluated using analysis of variance. IBM reproducibility was assessed using concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs). RESULTS: E was associated with reduced survival in cohort 1 (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.664). Eimin and VioF were associated with reduced survival in cohort 2 (HR 1.477 and 1.701). VioS was associated with reduced survival in cohorts 1 and 2 (HR 1.758 and 1.472). Spherical tumors correlated with shorter survival durations than did irregular tumors (median survival difference: 1.21 and 0.35 years in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively). VioS was a significant predictor of survival in multivariate analyses of both cohorts. All IBMs showed good reproducibility (CCC ranged between 0.86-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: In both investigated cohorts, VioS successfully linked shape morphology to patient survival.
Authors: Johannes R Kratz; Jianxing He; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Zhi-Hua Zhu; Wen Gao; Patrick T Pham; Michael S Mulvihill; Fatemeh Ziaei; Huanrong Zhang; Bo Su; Xiuyi Zhi; Charles P Quesenberry; Laurel A Habel; Qiuhua Deng; Zongfei Wang; Jiangfen Zhou; Huiling Li; Mei-Chun Huang; Che-Chung Yeh; Mark R Segal; M Roshni Ray; Kirk D Jones; Dan J Raz; Zhidong Xu; Thierry M Jahan; David Berryman; Biao He; Michael J Mann; David M Jablons Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kenneth Clark; Bruce Vendt; Kirk Smith; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Paul Koppel; Stephen Moore; Stanley Phillips; David Maffitt; Michael Pringle; Lawrence Tarbox; Fred Prior Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: B Sacconi; M Anzidei; A Leonardi; F Boni; L Saba; R Scipione; M Anile; M Rengo; F Longo; M Bezzi; F Venuta; A Napoli; A Laghi; C Catalano Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Sushravya Raghunath; Fabien Maldonado; Srinivasan Rajagopalan; Ronald A Karwoski; Zackary S DePew; Brian J Bartholmai; Tobias Peikert; Richard A Robb Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Mathieu Lederlin; Michael Puderbach; Thomas Muley; Philipp A Schnabel; Albrecht Stenzinger; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Claus Peter Heussel; Felix J F Herth; Hans Hoffmann; Hendrik Dienemann; Wilko Weichert; Arne Warth Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Olya Grove; Anders E Berglund; Matthew B Schabath; Hugo J W L Aerts; Andre Dekker; Hua Wang; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Philippe Lambin; Yuhua Gu; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Edward Eikman; Robert A Gatenby; Steven Eschrich; Robert J Gillies Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240