BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to characterize pre-treatment non-contrast computed tomography (CT) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) based radiomics signatures predictive of pathological response and clinical outcomes in rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACR T). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An exploratory analysis was performed using pre-treatment non-contrast CT and PET imaging dataset. The association of tumor regression grade (TRG) and neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score with pre-treatment CT and PET features was assessed using machine learning algorithms. Three separate predictive models were built for composite features from CT + PET. RESULTS: The patterns of pathological response were TRG 0 (n = 13; 19.7%), 1 (n = 34; 51.5%), 2 (n = 16; 24.2%), and 3 (n = 3; 4.5%). There were 20 (30.3%) patients with low, 22 (33.3%) with intermediate and 24 (36.4%) with high NAR scores. Three separate predictive models were built for composite features from CT + PET and analyzed separately for clinical endpoints. Composite features with α = 0.2 resulted in the best predictive power using logistic regression. For pathological response prediction, the signature resulted in 88.1% accuracy in predicting TRG 0 vs. TRG 1-3; 91% accuracy in predicting TRG 0-1 vs. TRG 2-3. For the surrogate of DFS and OS, it resulted in 67.7% accuracy in predicting low vs. intermediate vs. high NAR scores. CONCLUSION: The pre-treatment composite radiomics signatures were highly predictive of pathological response in rectal cancer treated with NACR T. A larger cohort is warranted for further validation.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to characterize pre-treatment non-contrast computed tomography (CT) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) based radiomics signatures predictive of pathological response and clinical outcomes in rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACR T). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An exploratory analysis was performed using pre-treatment non-contrast CT and PET imaging dataset. The association of tumor regression grade (TRG) and neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score with pre-treatment CT and PET features was assessed using machine learning algorithms. Three separate predictive models were built for composite features from CT + PET. RESULTS: The patterns of pathological response were TRG 0 (n = 13; 19.7%), 1 (n = 34; 51.5%), 2 (n = 16; 24.2%), and 3 (n = 3; 4.5%). There were 20 (30.3%) patients with low, 22 (33.3%) with intermediate and 24 (36.4%) with high NAR scores. Three separate predictive models were built for composite features from CT + PET and analyzed separately for clinical endpoints. Composite features with α = 0.2 resulted in the best predictive power using logistic regression. For pathological response prediction, the signature resulted in 88.1% accuracy in predicting TRG 0 vs. TRG 1-3; 91% accuracy in predicting TRG 0-1 vs. TRG 2-3. For the surrogate of DFS and OS, it resulted in 67.7% accuracy in predicting low vs. intermediate vs. high NAR scores. CONCLUSION: The pre-treatment composite radiomics signatures were highly predictive of pathological response in rectal cancer treated with NACR T. A larger cohort is warranted for further validation.
Authors: Davide Cusumano; Nicola Dinapoli; Luca Boldrini; Giuditta Chiloiro; Roberto Gatta; Carlotta Masciocchi; Jacopo Lenkowicz; Calogero Casà; Andrea Damiani; Luigi Azario; Johan Van Soest; Andre Dekker; Philippe Lambin; Marco De Spirito; Vincenzo Valentini Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Pierre Lovinfosse; Marc Polus; Daniel Van Daele; Philippe Martinive; Frédéric Daenen; Mathieu Hatt; Dimitris Visvikis; Benjamin Koopmansch; Frédéric Lambert; Carla Coimbra; Laurence Seidel; Adelin Albert; Philippe Delvenne; Roland Hustinx Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Carlo N De Cecco; Balaji Ganeshan; Maria Ciolina; Marco Rengo; Felix G Meinel; Daniela Musio; Francesca De Felice; Nicola Raffetto; Vincenzo Tombolini; Andrea Laghi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Yiwen Xu; Ahmed Hosny; Roman Zeleznik; Chintan Parmar; Thibaud Coroller; Idalid Franco; Raymond H Mak; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Andrei Mouraviev; Jay Detsky; Arjun Sahgal; Mark Ruschin; Young K Lee; Irene Karam; Chris Heyn; Greg J Stanisz; Anne L Martel Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 12.300