| Literature DB >> 33212885 |
Harini Veeraraghavan1, Herbert Alberto Vargas2, Alejandro-Jiménez Sánchez3, Maura Micco4, Eralda Mema5, Yulia Lakhman2, Mireia Crispin-Ortuzar3, Erich P Huang6, Douglas A Levine7, Rachel N Grisham8,9, Nadeem Abu-Rustum10, Joseph O Deasy1, Alexandra Snyder8,9, Martin L Miller3, James D Brenton3, Evis Sala2.
Abstract
Purpose: Develop an integrated intra-site and inter-site radiomics-clinical-genomic marker of high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) outcomes and explore the biological basis of radiomics with respect to molecular signaling pathways and the tumor microenvironment (TME). Method: Seventy-five stage III-IV HGSOC patients from internal (N = 40) and external factors via the Cancer Imaging Archive (TCGA) (N = 35) with pre-operative contrast enhanced CT, attempted primary cytoreduction, at least two disease sites, and molecular analysis performed within TCGA were retrospectively analyzed. An intra-site and inter-site radiomics (cluDiss) measure was combined with clinical-genomic variables (iRCG) and compared against conventional (volume and number of sites) and average radiomics (N = 75) for prognosticating progression-free survival (PFS) and platinum resistance. Correlation with molecular signaling and TME derived using a single sample gene set enrichment that was measured.Entities:
Keywords: chemotherapy response prognostication; computed tomography; high grade serous ovarian cancer; intra-site and inter-site radiomic heterogeneity; machine learning; radiomics
Year: 2020 PMID: 33212885 PMCID: PMC7698381 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12113403
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Patient characteristics of 75 analyzed patients.
| Patient Characteristics | MSKCC ( | TCIA ( |
|---|---|---|
| Age (median) (IQR) | 59 (50.8–66) | 61 (52–71) |
| Stage at diagnosis (proportion patients) | ||
| III | 27 (67.5%) | 31 (88.6%) |
| IV | 13 (32.5%) | 4 (11.4%) |
| Surgical debulking outcome (number of patients) | ||
| Complete | 14 | 8 |
| Optimal | 20 | 16 |
| Suboptimal | 6 | 11 |
| Recurrence status * (number of patients) | ||
| Recurring | 38 | 18 |
| Not recurring | 2 | 17 |
| Disease status (number of patients) | ||
| Alive | 17 | 14 |
| Dead | 23 | 21 |
| Follow up * mos (median) (IQR) | 41.9 (22.9–56.3) | 19.3 (6.3–38.6) |
| Survival (median) (IQR) | ||
| PFS + mos | 15.4 (10.5–26.2) | 13.3 (7.0–21.6) |
| OS + mos | 59.0 (43.1–76.4) | 30.0 (14.5–53.1) |
| Platinum status (number of patients) | ||
| Sensitive | 31 | 16 |
| Resistant | 7 | 7 |
| Unknown | 2 § | 12 § |
| Tumor volume (cm3) * (median) (IQR) | 122.0 (65.5–229.0) | 331.0 (158.2–595.0) |
| Tumor sites (median) * (IQR) | 7 (6–9) | 4 (3–5) |
| Copy number alterations (median) (IQR) | 0.546 (0.446–0.653) | 0.584 (0.443–0.654) |
| CT scanners: GE | 40 | 21 |
| Siemens | 0 | 12 |
* indicates datasets were significantly different (p < 0.05), + indicates datasets were significantly different (p < 0.05) computed using Log-rank tests. The reported number of events occurring within the time frame of the study. § These cases were removed for platinum resistance classification, and 61 remaining cases were used. Abbreviations: IQR – Inter quartile range; PFS – progression free survival; OS – overall survival.
Univariate and multivariable associations of computed radiomic measures with progression-free survival (PFS).
| Variable | Univariate Analysis | Multivariable Analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSKCC | TCIA | MSKCC | TCIA | |||||
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||||
| cluDiss | 0.0025 | 1.02 | 0.002 | 1.03 | 0.0008 | 1.03 | 0.004 | 1.04 |
| Number of sites | 0.049 | 1.13 | 0.029 | 1.59 | 0.242 | 1.11 | 0.009 | 2.00 |
| TTV | 0.705 | 1.06 | 0.653 | 0.914 | 0.813 | 0.953 | 0.513 | 0.855 |
| iRCG | 0.0004 | 1.36 | 0.007 | 1.39 | 0.001 | 1.38 | 0.009 | 1.46 |
| CCG | 0.058 | 1.34 | 0.515 | 1.13 | 0.411 | 0.97 | 0.825 | 1.02 |
| aRCG | 0.478 | 0.98 | 0.863 | 0.99 | 0.539 | 0.82 | 0.68 | 1.16 |
Abbreviations: CI–confidence interval. HR–hazard ratio. TTV–Total tumor volume. iRCG–intra-inter radiomic, conventional clinical, genomic classifier. CCG–conventional clinical, genomic classifier. aRCG–average heterogeneity radiomic, conventional clinical, and genomic classifier.
Figure 1Kaplan-Meier curves computed using (A) dichotomized iRCGPFS cut point (low risk < 642) and (B) cluDiss cut point (low risk < 68.82). The cut points were determined on the MSKCC dataset and applied to the TCIA dataset.
Machine learning classifier accuracies using intra-inter site radiomic-clinical-genomic (iRCG), conventional-clinical-genomic (CCG), and average radiomic-clinical-genomic (aRCG) classifiers of platinum resistance.
| Method | AUROC | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| iRCG SVM | 0.78 (0.76, 0.79) | 0.75 (0.72, 0.77) | 0.66 (0.65, 0.68) | |
| CCG SVM | 0.72 (0.70, 0.73) | 0.66 (0.64, 0.69) | 0.65 (0.64, 0.67) | <0.001 |
| aRCG SVM * | 0.73 (0.72, 0.75) | 0.68 (0.66, 0.71) | 0.62 (0.60, 0.63) | <0.001 |
* Recursive feature elimination support vector machine (SVM) classifier was used due to a large number of features to perform implicit feature selection.
Figure 2Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for classifying patients by platinum resistance using the iRCG-SVM, CCG-SVM, and aCCG-SVM classifiers.
Figure 3Principal component analysis (PCA) loadings of the Hallmark gene sets on (A) low-(cluDiss < 68.6) and (B) high-risk (cluDiss ≥ 68.6) patient groups. Only the top 20 contributing gene set pathways are shown.
Figure 4Spearman rank correlation coefficient matrix of the relevant radiomic measures and (A) 50 HALLMARK gene sets and (B) the consensusTME TME cell types. Significant correlations (p < 0.05) are indicated with *.
Figure 5Schema of experimental workflow. The intra-tumor and inter-tumor radiomic heterogeneity (IISH) measures that summarize the heterogeneity across the various sites of disease are combined with clinical and genomic factors to produce a combined classifier of outcome.