| Literature DB >> 33052242 |
Nasha Zhang1,2, Rachel Liang1, Michael F Gensheimer1, Meiying Guo2, Hui Zhu1, Jinming Yu2, Maximilian Diehn1, Bill W Loo1, Ruijiang Li1, Jia Wu1,3.
Abstract
Prognostic biomarkers that can reliably predict early disease progression of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are needed for identifying those patients at high risk for progression, who may benefit from more intensive treatment. In this work, we aimed to identify an imaging signature for predicting progression-free survival (PFS) of locally advanced NSCLC.Entities:
Keywords: PFS; imaging model; locally advanced NSCLC; pre and mid-treatment PET; radiomics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33052242 PMCID: PMC7546006 DOI: 10.7150/thno.50565
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theranostics ISSN: 1838-7640 Impact factor: 11.556
Figure 1The overall study design. The study was conducted in four steps. Step 1: tumors and lymph nodes were segmented and delineated on both baseline and mid-RT fused PET/CT scans. Step 2: quantitative image features were extracted from 3D ROIs. Step 3: we developed an imaging signature to predict progression-free survival by fitting an L1-regularized Cox regression model. Step 4: the model performance was assessed in the training cohort and validated in the testing cohort. The C-index and receiver operating characteristic curve were applied to evaluate the performance of the imaging model. ROI = region of interest.
Forty-five radiomic features extracted from patients' PET/CT scans.
| Tumor at pre- and mid-RT | Lymph Node at pre- and mid-RT | Δ Features, mid - pre (n=5) |
|---|---|---|
| Morphology | Morphology | Tumor |
| Volume (Tmorph.vol) | Volume (Nmorph.vol) | Δ Volume (Δ. Tmorph.vol) |
| Sphericity (Tmorph.sphericity) | Number (Nmorph.num) | Lymph Node |
| Boundary Sharpness | Nodal Spread (Nmorph.spread1) | Δ Volume (Δ.Nmorph.vol) |
| Mean (Tbound.mean) | Node-Tumor Spread (Nmorph.spread2) | Δ Number (Δ. Nmorph.num) |
| Standard Deviation (Tbound.std) | Boundary Sharpness | Δ Nodal Spread (Δ. Nmorph.spread1) |
| Intensity | Mean (Nbound.mean) | Δ Node-Tumor Spread (Δ. Nmorph.spread2) |
| Mean (Tih.mean) | Standard Deviation (Nbound.std) | |
| Standard Deviation (Tih.std) | Intensity | |
| Entropy (Tih.entropy) | Mean (Nih.mean) | |
| GLCM Texture | Standard Deviation (Nih.std) | |
| Contrast (Tcm.contrast) | Entropy (Nih.entropy) | |
| Homogeneity (Tcm.homogeneity) | ||
| Correlation (Tcm.corr) | ||
| Energy (Tcm.energy) |
Figure 2Protocol enrollment and analysis diagram for the study. CCRT=concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study patients
| Parameter | Training (n=41) | Testing (n=41) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 25 (61.0%) | 23 (56.1%) | |
| Female | 16 (39.0%) | 18 (43.9%) | |
| T1 | 12 (29.2%) | 9 (22.0%) | |
| T2 | 9 (22.0%) | 15 (36.6%) | |
| T3 | 5 (12.2%) | 11 (26.8%) | |
| T4 | 15 (36.6%) | 6 (14.6%) | |
| N0 | 2 (4.9%) | 1 (2.4%) | |
| N1 | 2 (4.9%) | 2 (4.9%) | |
| N2 | 24 (58.5%) | 21 (51.2%) | |
| N3 | 13 (31.7%) | 17 (41.5%) | |
| IIIA | 20 (48.8%) | 18 (43.9%) | |
| IIIB | 21 (51.2%) | 23 (56.1%) | |
| Adenocarcinoma | 18 (43.9%) | 18 (43.9%) | |
| SCC | 16 (39.0%) | 10 (24.4%) | |
| NSCLC-NOS | 7 (17.1%) | 13 (31.7%) | |
| KPS Score | 80 (60-100) | 80 (50-100) | |
| Event | 20 (48.8%) | 21 (51.2%) | |
| No event | 21 (51.2%) | 20 (48.8%) | |
| Median, std | 2.0 (0.8) | 1.9 (0.6) |
Figure 3The 45 quantitative imaging features selected for predicting PFS. The selection probability represents the importance of individual features.
Details of the three imaging features in the final cox model for predicting PFS
| Selected PET features | HR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline tumor volume | 5.23 | 2.04 - 13.41 | <0.001 |
| Change in maximum distance between the primary tumor and involved nodes measured at two time points | 2.19 | 1.25 - 3.86 | 0.007 |
| Baseline maximum distance between involved nodes | 1.99 | 1.15 - 4.44 | 0.014 |
Figure 4Waterfall plot of predicted risk of PFS according to the proposed imaging signature for A) Training cohort and B) Testing cohort.
Figure 5Kaplan-Meier curves of PFS in the study patients. At the cut-off value in the imaging model, patients were stratified into low-risk and high-risk groups regarding disease progression. A) Training cohort. B) Testing cohort.
Results of univariate and multivariate analyses of the proposed imaging signature and clinical factors in predicting PFS
| Predictors | Training cohort | Testing cohort | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | |||||||||
| HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | |||||
| 1.14 | 1.03 - 1.27 | 0.013 * | 1.14 | 1.04 - 1.24 | 0.003 * | 1.40 | 1.04 - 1.88 | 0.027 * | 1.21 | 1.10 - 1.33 | 0.048 * | |
| 1.03 | 0.98 - 1.08 | 0.248 | 1.03 | 0.98 - 1.08 | 0.275 | 0.97 | 0.93 - 1.02 | 0.240 | 0.97 | 0.92 - 1.03 | 0.281 | |
| 0.96 | 0.40 - 2.31 | 0.921 | 1.75 | 0.58 - 5.26 | 0.323 | 0.83 | 0.35 - 1.98 | 0.674 | 0.78 | 0.27 - 2.24 | 0.643 | |
| 1.49 | 0.62 - 3.57 | 0.376 | 1.23 | 0.42 - 3.57 | 0.699 | 1.39 | 0.62 - 3.33 | 0.424 | 1.32 | 0.21 - 1.47 | 0.236 | |
| 1.37 | 0.54 - 3.47 | 0.511 | 2.06 | 0.70 - 6.03 | 0.187 | 1.17 | 0.48 - 2.84 | 0.725 | 1.85 | 0.68 - 5.04 | 0.230 | |
| 0.96 | 0.91 - 1.00 | 0.068 | 0.97 | 0.92 - 1.02 | 0.266 | 0.96 | 0.92 - 1.01 | 0.132 | 0.97 | 0.92 - 1.02 | 0.243 | |
Note: 1. male as 1, female as 0; 2. IIIA as 0, IIIB as 1; 3. KPS as continuous value; 4. Adenocarcinoma as 1, others as 0.
Figure 6Accuracy of predicting PFS as measured using the C-index for the imaging signature compared with six conventional imaging features and one clinical parameter. The conventional imaging features were pre-RT tumor volume, mid-RT tumor volume, change in tumor volume, pre-RT SUVmax, mid-RT SUVmax, and change in SUVmax. The clinical parameter was TNM stage.