Tan Hong Qi1, Ong Hiok Hian2, Arjunan Muthu Kumaran1, Tira J Tan3,4, Tan Ryan Ying Cong3,4, Ghislaine Lee Su-Xin1, Elaine Hsuen Lim3, Raymond Ng3,4, Ming Chert Richard Yeo1,4, Faye Lynette Lim Wei Tching1,4, Zhang Zewen3,4, Christina Yang Shi Hui5,6, Wong Ru Xin1,4, Su Kai Gideon Ooi7,4, Lester Chee Hao Leong8, Su Ming Tan9, Madhukumar Preetha5,6, Yirong Sim5,6, Veronique Kiak Mien Tan5,6, Joe Yeong10,11, Wong Fuh Yong12,13, Yiyu Cai14, Wen Long Nei15,16. 1. Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 2. School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 4. Oncology Academic Programme, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. 5. Division of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 6. Department of Breast Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 7. Division of Oncologic Imaging, National Cancer Center Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 8. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 9. Division of Breast Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 10. Division of Pathology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 11. Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Agency for Science Technology and Research, Singapore, Singapore. 12. Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. wong.fuh.yong@singhealth.com.sg. 13. Oncology Academic Programme, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. wong.fuh.yong@singhealth.com.sg. 14. School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. MYYCai@ntu.edu.sg. 15. Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. nei.wen.long@singhealth.com.sg. 16. Oncology Academic Programme, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. nei.wen.long@singhealth.com.sg.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) plays an important role in the management of locally advanced breast cancer. It allows for downstaging of tumors, potentially allowing for breast conservation. NAC also allows for in-vivo testing of the tumors' response to chemotherapy and provides important prognostic information. There are currently no clearly defined clinical models that incorporate imaging with clinical data to predict response to NAC. Thus, the aim of this work is to develop a predictive AI model based on routine CT imaging and clinical parameters to predict response to NAC. METHODS: The CT scans of 324 patients with NAC from multiple centers in Singapore were used in this study. Four different radiomics models were built for predicting pathological complete response (pCR): first two were based on textural features extracted from peri-tumoral and tumoral regions, the third model based on novel space-resolved radiomics which extract feature maps using voxel-based radiomics and the fourth model based on deep learning (DL). Clinical parameters were included to build a final prognostic model. RESULTS: The best performing models were based on space-resolved and DL approaches. Space-resolved radiomics improves the clinical AUCs of pCR prediction from 0.743 (0.650 to 0.831) to 0.775 (0.685 to 0.860) and our DL model improved it from 0.743 (0.650 to 0.831) to 0.772 (0.685 to 0.853). The tumoral radiomics model performs the worst with no improvement of the AUC from the clinical model. The peri-tumoral combined model gives moderate performance with an AUC of 0.765 (0.671 to 0.855). CONCLUSIONS: Radiomics features extracted from diagnostic CT augment the predictive ability of pCR when combined with clinical features. The novel space-resolved radiomics and DL radiomics approaches outperformed conventional radiomics techniques.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) plays an important role in the management of locally advanced breast cancer. It allows for downstaging of tumors, potentially allowing for breast conservation. NAC also allows for in-vivo testing of the tumors' response to chemotherapy and provides important prognostic information. There are currently no clearly defined clinical models that incorporate imaging with clinical data to predict response to NAC. Thus, the aim of this work is to develop a predictive AI model based on routine CT imaging and clinical parameters to predict response to NAC. METHODS: The CT scans of 324 patients with NAC from multiple centers in Singapore were used in this study. Four different radiomics models were built for predicting pathological complete response (pCR): first two were based on textural features extracted from peri-tumoral and tumoral regions, the third model based on novel space-resolved radiomics which extract feature maps using voxel-based radiomics and the fourth model based on deep learning (DL). Clinical parameters were included to build a final prognostic model. RESULTS: The best performing models were based on space-resolved and DL approaches. Space-resolved radiomics improves the clinical AUCs of pCR prediction from 0.743 (0.650 to 0.831) to 0.775 (0.685 to 0.860) and our DL model improved it from 0.743 (0.650 to 0.831) to 0.772 (0.685 to 0.853). The tumoral radiomics model performs the worst with no improvement of the AUC from the clinical model. The peri-tumoral combined model gives moderate performance with an AUC of 0.765 (0.671 to 0.855). CONCLUSIONS: Radiomics features extracted from diagnostic CT augment the predictive ability of pCR when combined with clinical features. The novel space-resolved radiomics and DL radiomics approaches outperformed conventional radiomics techniques.
Authors: Nehmat Houssami; Petra Macaskill; Gunter von Minckwitz; Michael L Marinovich; Eleftherios Mamounas Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jan C Peeken; Michael Bernhofer; Benedikt Wiestler; Tatyana Goldberg; Daniel Cremers; Burkhard Rost; Jan J Wilkens; Stephanie E Combs; Fridtjof Nüsslin Journal: Phys Med Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Brigid K Killelea; Vicky Q Yang; Sarah Mougalian; Nina R Horowitz; Lajos Pusztai; Anees B Chagpar; Donald R Lannin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Patricia Cortazar; Lijun Zhang; Michael Untch; Keyur Mehta; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark; Hervé Bonnefoi; David Cameron; Luca Gianni; Pinuccia Valagussa; Sandra M Swain; Tatiana Prowell; Sibylle Loibl; D Lawrence Wickerham; Jan Bogaerts; Jose Baselga; Charles Perou; Gideon Blumenthal; Jens Blohmer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Jonas Bergh; Vladimir Semiglazov; Robert Justice; Holger Eidtmann; Soonmyung Paik; Martine Piccart; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Peter A Fasching; Leen Slaets; Shenghui Tang; Bernd Gerber; Charles E Geyer; Richard Pazdur; Nina Ditsch; Priya Rastogi; Wolfgang Eiermann; Gunter von Minckwitz Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: An Tang; Mustafa R Bashir; Michael T Corwin; Irene Cruite; Christoph F Dietrich; Richard K G Do; Eric C Ehman; Kathryn J Fowler; Hero K Hussain; Reena C Jha; Adib R Karam; Adrija Mamidipalli; Robert M Marks; Donald G Mitchell; Tara A Morgan; Michael A Ohliger; Amol Shah; Kim-Nhien Vu; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 11.105