Kyle J Lafata1,2,3,4, Yushi Chang1,4, Chunhao Wang1,4, Yvonne M Mowery1,5, Irina Vergalasova6, Donna Niedzwiecki7, David S Yoo1, Jian-Guo Liu8,9, David M Brizel1,5, Fang-Fang Yin1,4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Duke University Pratt School of Engineering, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Department of Head and Neck Surgery & Communication Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 7. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 8. Department of Mathematics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 9. Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the prognostic potential of intra-treatment PET radiomics data in patients undergoing definitive (chemo) radiation therapy for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) on a prospective clinical trial. We hypothesized that the radiomic expression of OPC tumors after 20 Gy is associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients undergoing definitive (chemo)radiation for OPC were prospectively enrolled on an IRB-approved study. Investigational 18 F-FDG-PET/CT images were acquired prior to treatment and 2 weeks (20 Gy) into a seven-week course of therapy. Fifty-five quantitative radiomic features were extracted from the primary tumor as potential biomarkers of early metabolic response. An unsupervised data clustering algorithm was used to partition patients into clusters based only on their radiomic expression. Clustering results were naïvely compared to residual disease and/or subsequent recurrence and used to derive Kaplan-Meier estimators of RFS. To test whether radiomic expression provides prognostic value beyond conventional clinical features associated with head and neck cancer, multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to adjust radiomic clusters for T and N stage, HPV status, and change in tumor volume. RESULTS: While pre-treatment radiomics were not prognostic, intra-treatment radiomic expression was intrinsically associated with both residual/recurrent disease (P = 0.0256, χ 2 test) and RFS (HR = 7.53, 95% CI = 2.54-22.3; P = 0.0201). On univariate Cox analysis, radiomic cluster was associated with RFS (unadjusted HR = 2.70; 95% CI = 1.26-5.76; P = 0.0104) and maintained significance after adjustment for T, N staging, HPV status, and change in tumor volume after 20 Gy (adjusted HR = 2.69; 95% CI = 1.03-7.04; P = 0.0442). The particular radiomic characteristics associated with outcomes suggest that metabolic spatial heterogeneity after 20 Gy portends complete and durable therapeutic response. This finding is independent of baseline metabolic imaging characteristics and clinical features of head and neck cancer, thus providing prognostic advantages over existing approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Our data illustrate the prognostic value of intra-treatment metabolic image interrogation, which may potentially guide adaptive therapy strategies for OPC patients and serve as a blueprint for other disease sites. The quality of our study was strengthened by its prospective image acquisition protocol, homogenous patient cohort, relatively long patient follow-up times, and unsupervised clustering formalism that is less prone to hyper-parameter tuning and over-fitting compared to supervised learning.
PURPOSE: This study investigated the prognostic potential of intra-treatment PET radiomics data in patients undergoing definitive (chemo) radiation therapy for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) on a prospective clinical trial. We hypothesized that the radiomic expression of OPC tumors after 20 Gy is associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients undergoing definitive (chemo)radiation for OPC were prospectively enrolled on an IRB-approved study. Investigational 18 F-FDG-PET/CT images were acquired prior to treatment and 2 weeks (20 Gy) into a seven-week course of therapy. Fifty-five quantitative radiomic features were extracted from the primary tumor as potential biomarkers of early metabolic response. An unsupervised data clustering algorithm was used to partition patients into clusters based only on their radiomic expression. Clustering results were naïvely compared to residual disease and/or subsequent recurrence and used to derive Kaplan-Meier estimators of RFS. To test whether radiomic expression provides prognostic value beyond conventional clinical features associated with head and neck cancer, multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to adjust radiomic clusters for T and N stage, HPV status, and change in tumor volume. RESULTS: While pre-treatment radiomics were not prognostic, intra-treatment radiomic expression was intrinsically associated with both residual/recurrent disease (P = 0.0256, χ 2 test) and RFS (HR = 7.53, 95% CI = 2.54-22.3; P = 0.0201). On univariate Cox analysis, radiomic cluster was associated with RFS (unadjusted HR = 2.70; 95% CI = 1.26-5.76; P = 0.0104) and maintained significance after adjustment for T, N staging, HPV status, and change in tumor volume after 20 Gy (adjusted HR = 2.69; 95% CI = 1.03-7.04; P = 0.0442). The particular radiomic characteristics associated with outcomes suggest that metabolic spatial heterogeneity after 20 Gy portends complete and durable therapeutic response. This finding is independent of baseline metabolic imaging characteristics and clinical features of head and neck cancer, thus providing prognostic advantages over existing approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Our data illustrate the prognostic value of intra-treatment metabolic image interrogation, which may potentially guide adaptive therapy strategies for OPC patients and serve as a blueprint for other disease sites. The quality of our study was strengthened by its prospective image acquisition protocol, homogenous patient cohort, relatively long patient follow-up times, and unsupervised clustering formalism that is less prone to hyper-parameter tuning and over-fitting compared to supervised learning.
Authors: Lisanne V van Dijk; Walter Noordzij; Charlotte L Brouwer; Ronald Boellaard; Johannes G M Burgerhof; Johannes A Langendijk; Nanna M Sijtsema; Roel J H M Steenbakkers Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-09-23 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Brian O'Sullivan; Shao Hui Huang; Jie Su; Adam S Garden; Erich M Sturgis; Kristina Dahlstrom; Nancy Lee; Nadeem Riaz; Xin Pei; Shlomo A Koyfman; David Adelstein; Brian B Burkey; Jeppe Friborg; Claus A Kristensen; Anita B Gothelf; Frank Hoebers; Bernd Kremer; Ernst-Jan Speel; Daniel W Bowles; David Raben; Sana D Karam; Eugene Yu; Wei Xu Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Michael R Folkert; Jeremy Setton; Aditya P Apte; Milan Grkovski; Robert J Young; Heiko Schöder; Wade L Thorstad; Nancy Y Lee; Joseph O Deasy; Jung Hun Oh Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Kyle J Lafata; Michael N Corradetti; Junheng Gao; Corbin D Jacobs; Jingxi Weng; Yushi Chang; Chunhao Wang; Ace Hatch; Eric Xanthopoulos; Greg Jones; Chris R Kelsey; Fang-Fang Yin Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2021-04
Authors: Erica C Nakajima; Charles Laymon; Matthew Oborski; Weizhou Hou; Lin Wang; Jennifer R Grandis; Robert L Ferris; James M Mountz; Bennett Van Houten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Khalid O Alfarouk; Daniel Verduzco; Cyril Rauch; Abdel Khalig Muddathir; H H Bashir Adil; Gamal O Elhassan; Muntaser E Ibrahim; Julian David Polo Orozco; Rosa Angela Cardone; Stephan J Reshkin; Salvador Harguindey Journal: Oncoscience Date: 2014-12-18
Authors: Haonan Lu; Mubarik Arshad; Andrew Thornton; Giacomo Avesani; Paula Cunnea; Ed Curry; Fahdi Kanavati; Jack Liang; Katherine Nixon; Sophie T Williams; Mona Ali Hassan; David D L Bowtell; Hani Gabra; Christina Fotopoulou; Andrea Rockall; Eric O Aboagye Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Bhishamjit S Chera; Sunil Kumar; Colette Shen; Robert Amdur; Roi Dagan; Rebecca Green; Emily Goldman; Jared Weiss; Juneko Grilley-Olson; Shetal Patel; Adam Zanation; Trevor Hackman; Jeff Blumberg; Samip Patel; Brian Thorp; Mark Weissler; Wendell Yarbrough; Nathan Sheets; William Mendenhall; Xianming M Tan; Gaorav P Gupta Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael N Corradetti; Jordan A Torok; Ace J Hatch; Eric P Xanthopoulos; Kyle Lafata; Corbin Jacobs; Christel Rushing; John Calaway; Greg Jones; Chris R Kelsey; Andrew B Nixon Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-05-22
Authors: Hangjie Ji; Kyle Lafata; Yvonne Mowery; David Brizel; Andrea L Bertozzi; Fang-Fang Yin; Chunhao Wang Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Alex J Allphin; Yvonne M Mowery; Kyle J Lafata; Darin P Clark; Alex M Bassil; Rico Castillo; Diana Odhiambo; Matthew D Holbrook; Ketan B Ghaghada; Cristian T Badea Journal: Tomography Date: 2022-03-10