| Literature DB >> 32879900 |
Hakmook Kang1,2, E Edmund Kim3,4, Sepideh Shokouhi5, Kenneth Tokita4, Hye-Won Shin4,6.
Abstract
Predicting biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer is imperative for initiating early treatment, which can improve the outcome of cancer treatment. However, because of inter- and intrareader variability in interpretation of F-18 fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), it is difficult to reliably discern between necrotic tissue owing to radiation therapy and tumor tissue. Our goal is to develop a computational methodology using Haralick texture analysis that can be used as an adjunct tool to improve and standardize the interpretation of F-18 fluciclovine PET/CT to identify biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Four main textural features were chosen by variable selection procedure using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression and bootstrapping, and then included as predictors in subsequent logistic ridge regression model for prediction (n = 28). Age at prostatectomy, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level before the PET/CT imaging, and number of days between the prostate-specific antigen measurement and PET/CT imaging were also included in the prediction model. The overfitting-corrected area under the curve and Brier score of the proposed model were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.00) and 0.12 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.23), respectively. Compared with a model with textural features (TI model) and that with only clinical information (CI model), the proposed model achieved 2% and 32% increase in AUC and 8% and 48% reduction in Brier score, respectively. Combining Haralick textural features based on the PET/CT imaging data with clinical information shows a high potential of enhanced prediction of the biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Axumin; F-18 fluciclovine; Haralick features; Positron emission tomography (PET); prostate cancer
Year: 2020 PMID: 32879900 PMCID: PMC7442090 DOI: 10.18383/j.tom.2020.00029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tomography ISSN: 2379-1381
Clinicopathological Characteristics of Study Subjects
| Characteristic | Subjects (n = 28) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| F-18 Fluciclovine–Positive (n = 17) | F-18 Fluciclovine–Negative (n = 11) | ||
| Age at prostatectomy, years (Mean ± SD) | 66 ± 6 | 61 ± 8 | .11 |
| Prior cancer therapies (N) | 1.00 | ||
| Prostatectomy only | 17 | 11 | |
| Prostatectomy + Radiation therapy | 4/17 (24%) | 2/11 (18%) | |
| Initial Gleason score (N) | .22b | ||
| No records or missing | 2 (12%) | 2 (18%) | |
| 6 | 1 (6%) | 0 (0%) | |
| 7 | 9 (53%) | 7 (64%) | |
| 8 | 4 (24%) | 2 (18%) | |
| 9 | 1 (6%) | 0 (0%) | |
| PSA | 1.00b | ||
| PSA < 1 ng/mL | 14 (82%) | 9 (82%) | |
| PSA 1 ≤ 2 ng/mL | 0 (0%) | 1 (9%) | |
| PSA ≥ 2 ng/mL | 3 (18%) | 1 (9%) | |
| Interval between PSA prior to F-18 fluciclovineand F-18 fluciclovine scan, days, median (range) | 29 (6, 309) | 13 (0, 68) | .07c |
PSA before F-18 fluciclovine scan.b Cells with zero observation were combined with other categories to compute the P-value.c P-value was computed after removing 2 outliers, that is, 149 and 309 days.
F-18 Fluciclovine–Positive Region Identified by an Experienced Nuclear Medicine Physician
| Prostate bed only | 8 (47%) |
| Prostate bed + pelvic lymph nodes | 4 (24%) |
| Extrapelvic sites | 5 (29%) |
The extrapelvic sites include retroperitoneal lymph node or bone lesion.
Figure 1.For a patient with recurrent prostate cancer (PCa), the F-18 fluciclovine positron emission tomography (PET) image near prostate bed and Haralick texture maps for 3 selected texture variables at 2 different slices (A), contrast texture at slice 7 (B), variance texture at slice 7 (C), and correlation texture at slice 9 (D).
Figure 2.For a patient without recurrent PCa, the F-18 fluciclovine PET image near prostate bed and Haralick texture maps for 3 selected texture variables at 2 different slices (A), contrast texture at slice 7 (B), variance texture at slice 7 (C), and correlation texture at slice 9 (D).
The AUC and Brier Scores (with Bootstrap 95% Confidence Intervals) Based on Overfitting-Correction
| CTI model | 0.94 (0.81, 1.00) | 0.12 (0.03, 0.23) |
| TI model | 0.92 (0.79, 1.00) | 0.13 (0.04, 0.24) |
| CI model | 0.71 (0.44, 0.89) | 0.23 (0.15, 0.31) |
The scores are for the model with texture information and clinical data (CTI model) (A), the same model without clinical data (TI model) (B), and the model with only clinical data (CI model) (C).
Figure 3.Differences in overfitting-corrected area under the curve (AUCs) between CTI model and CI model (A) and between CTI model and TI model (B). The area, which is ∼0 and 0.4, in each plot indicates how likely the overfitting-corrected AUCs based on the CTI model are smaller than those based on the CI and TI models. That is, the CTI model would at least be 99% (or 60%) more likely to outperform the CI (or TI) model in terms of overfitting-corrected AUC. CTI, TI, and CI models denote a model with texture information and clinical information, a model with only texture information, and a model only with clinical information, respectively.
Summary of CTI outperforming CI or TI Model in terms of AUCs and Brier Scores
| CTI vs CI | 0.99 | 0.98 |
| CTI vs TI | 0.60 | 0.67 |
The table depicts the probability of how likely the first model would outperform the second model for each comparison in terms of AUC and Brier scores based on overfitting-correction. Prob (AUC) and Prob (Brier score) denotes the probability that the first model (ie, CTI) outperforms the second model (ie, CI or TI) in terms of overfitting-corrected AUC and Brier score, respectively. CTI, TI, and CI models denote a model with texture information and clinical information, a model only with texture information, and a model only with clinical information, respectively.