Niels W Schurink1,2, Simon R van Kranen3, Maaike Berbee4,5, Wouter van Elmpt4,5, Frans C H Bakers5, Sander Roberti6, Joost J M van Griethuysen1,2, Lisa A Min1,2, Max J Lahaye1, Monique Maas1, Geerard L Beets2,7, Regina G H Beets-Tan1,2, Doenja M J Lambregts8. 1. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. d.lambregts@nki.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether quantifying local tumour heterogeneity has added benefit compared to global tumour features to predict response to chemoradiotherapy using pre-treatment multiparametric PET and MRI data. METHODS: Sixty-one locally advanced rectal cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy and staged at baseline with MRI and FDG-PET/CT were retrospectively analyzed. Whole-tumour volumes were segmented on the MRI and PET/CT scans from which global tumour features (T2Wvolume/T2Wentropy/ADCmean/SUVmean/TLG/CTmean-HU) and local texture features (histogram features derived from local entropy/mean/standard deviation maps) were calculated. These respective feature sets were combined with clinical baseline parameters (e.g. age/gender/TN-stage) to build multivariable prediction models to predict a good (Mandard TRG1-2) versus poor (Mandard TRG3-5) response to chemoradiotherapy. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) with bootstrapping was performed to estimate performance in an 'independent' dataset. RESULTS: When using only imaging features, local texture features showed an AUC = 0.81 versus AUC = 0.74 for global tumour features. After internal cross-validation (LOOCV), AUC to predict a good response was the highest for the combination of clinical baseline variables + global tumour features (AUC = 0.83), compared to AUC = 0.79 for baseline + local texture and AUC = 0.76 for all combined (baseline + global + local texture). CONCLUSION: In imaging-based prediction models, local texture analysis has potential added value compared to global tumour features to predict response. However, when combined with clinical baseline parameters such as cTN-stage, the added value of local texture analysis appears to be limited. The overall performance to predict response when combining baseline variables with quantitative imaging parameters is promising and warrants further research. KEY POINTS: • Quantification of local tumour texture on pre-therapy FDG-PET/CT and MRI has potential added value compared to global tumour features to predict response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer. • However, when combined with clinical baseline parameters such as cTN-stage, the added value of local texture over global tumour features is limited. • Predictive performance of our optimal model-combining clinical baseline variables with global quantitative tumour features-was encouraging (AUC 0.83), warranting further research in this direction on a larger scale.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether quantifying local tumour heterogeneity has added benefit compared to global tumour features to predict response to chemoradiotherapy using pre-treatment multiparametric PET and MRI data. METHODS: Sixty-one locally advanced rectal cancerpatients treated with chemoradiotherapy and staged at baseline with MRI and FDG-PET/CT were retrospectively analyzed. Whole-tumour volumes were segmented on the MRI and PET/CT scans from which global tumour features (T2Wvolume/T2Wentropy/ADCmean/SUVmean/TLG/CTmean-HU) and local texture features (histogram features derived from local entropy/mean/standard deviation maps) were calculated. These respective feature sets were combined with clinical baseline parameters (e.g. age/gender/TN-stage) to build multivariable prediction models to predict a good (Mandard TRG1-2) versus poor (Mandard TRG3-5) response to chemoradiotherapy. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) with bootstrapping was performed to estimate performance in an 'independent' dataset. RESULTS: When using only imaging features, local texture features showed an AUC = 0.81 versus AUC = 0.74 for global tumour features. After internal cross-validation (LOOCV), AUC to predict a good response was the highest for the combination of clinical baseline variables + global tumour features (AUC = 0.83), compared to AUC = 0.79 for baseline + local texture and AUC = 0.76 for all combined (baseline + global + local texture). CONCLUSION: In imaging-based prediction models, local texture analysis has potential added value compared to global tumour features to predict response. However, when combined with clinical baseline parameters such as cTN-stage, the added value of local texture analysis appears to be limited. The overall performance to predict response when combining baseline variables with quantitative imaging parameters is promising and warrants further research. KEY POINTS: • Quantification of local tumour texture on pre-therapy FDG-PET/CT and MRI has potential added value compared to global tumour features to predict response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer. • However, when combined with clinical baseline parameters such as cTN-stage, the added value of local texture over global tumour features is limited. • Predictive performance of our optimal model-combining clinical baseline variables with global quantitative tumour features-was encouraging (AUC 0.83), warranting further research in this direction on a larger scale.
Authors: A M Maffione; S Chondrogiannis; C Capirci; F Galeotti; A Fornasiero; G Crepaldi; G Grassetto; L Rampin; M C Marzola; D Rubello Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Niels W Schurink; Lisa A Min; Maaike Berbee; Wouter van Elmpt; Joost J M van Griethuysen; Frans C H Bakers; Sander Roberti; Simon R van Kranen; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ines Joye; Annelies Debucquoy; Christophe M Deroose; Vincent Vandecaveye; Eric Van Cutsem; Albert Wolthuis; André D'Hoore; Xavier Sagaert; Mu Zhou; Olivier Gevaert; Karin Haustermans Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Ke Nie; Liming Shi; Qin Chen; Xi Hu; Salma K Jabbour; Ning Yue; Tianye Niu; Xiaonan Sun Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 12.531