| Literature DB >> 35267535 |
Parisa Forouzannezhad1, Dominic Maes1, Daniel S Hippe2, Phawis Thammasorn3, Reza Iranzad3, Jie Han4, Chunyan Duan5, Xiao Liu3, Shouyi Wang4, W Art Chaovalitwongse3, Jing Zeng1, Stephen R Bowen1,6.
Abstract
Medical imaging provides quantitative and spatial information to evaluate treatment response in the management of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). High throughput extraction of radiomic features on these images can potentially phenotype tumors non-invasively and support risk stratification based on survival outcome prediction. The prognostic value of radiomics from different imaging modalities and time points prior to and during chemoradiation therapy of NSCLC, relative to conventional imaging biomarker or delta radiomics models, remains uncharacterized. We investigated the utility of multitask learning of multi-time point radiomic features, as opposed to single-task learning, for improving survival outcome prediction relative to conventional clinical imaging feature model benchmarks. Survival outcomes were prospectively collected for 45 patients with unresectable NSCLC enrolled on the FLARE-RT phase II trial of risk-adaptive chemoradiation and optional consolidation PD-L1 checkpoint blockade (NCT02773238). FDG-PET, CT, and perfusion SPECT imaging pretreatment and week 3 mid-treatment was performed and 110 IBSI-compliant pyradiomics shape-/intensity-/texture-based features from the metabolic tumor volume were extracted. Outcome modeling consisted of a fused Laplacian sparse group LASSO with component-wise gradient boosting survival regression in a multitask learning framework. Testing performance under stratified 10-fold cross-validation was evaluated for multitask learning radiomics of different imaging modalities and time points. Multitask learning models were benchmarked against conventional clinical imaging and delta radiomics models and evaluated with the concordance index (c-index) and index of prediction accuracy (IPA). FDG-PET radiomics had higher prognostic value for overall survival in test folds (c-index 0.71 [0.67, 0.75]) than CT radiomics (c-index 0.64 [0.60, 0.71]) or perfusion SPECT radiomics (c-index 0.60 [0.57, 0.63]). Multitask learning of pre-/mid-treatment FDG-PET radiomics (c-index 0.71 [0.67, 0.75]) outperformed benchmark clinical imaging (c-index 0.65 [0.59, 0.71]) and FDG-PET delta radiomics (c-index 0.52 [0.48, 0.58]) models. Similarly, the IPA for multitask learning FDG-PET radiomics (30%) was higher than clinical imaging (26%) and delta radiomics (15%) models. Radiomics models performed consistently under different voxel resampling conditions. Multitask learning radiomics for outcome modeling provides a clinical decision support platform that leverages longitudinal imaging information. This framework can reveal the relative importance of different imaging modalities and time points when designing risk-adaptive cancer treatment strategies.Entities:
Keywords: CT; FDG-PET; LASSO; SPECT; gradient boosting; lung cancer; multimodal imaging; multitask regression; radiomics; survival analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35267535 PMCID: PMC8909466 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14051228
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Demographic and clinical information of the participants in the FLARE-RT clinical trial.
| Characteristics | Value * | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 63 (34–78) | |
| Gender | ||
| Female | 25 (56%) | |
| Male | 20 (44%) | |
| Clinical Stage (AJCCv7) | ||
| IIB | 2 (4%) | |
| IIIA | 23 (51%) | |
| IIIB | 15 (33%) | |
| N2 Recurrence | 5 (11%) | |
| Histology | ||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 14 (31%) | |
| Adenocarcinoma | 29 (64%) | |
| other | 2 (4%) | |
| Radiation therapy | ||
| Proton scanning beam therapy | 23 (51%) | |
| X-ray radiotherapy (IMRT/VMAT) | 22 (49%) | |
| Chemotherapy | ||
| Carboplatin + paclitaxel | 25 (56%) | |
| Cisplatin + etoposide | 11 (24%) | |
| Other platinum doublet | 9 (20%) | |
| PD-L1 tumor proportion score | ||
| >50% | 6 (13%) | |
| 1–49% | 7 (16%) | |
| <1% | 7 (16%) | |
| Unknown | 25 (56%) | |
| Mid-PET Response | ||
| Responder | 29 (64%) | |
| Non-responder | 16 (36%) | |
| Mid-PET PERCIST 1.0 | ||
| Partial metabolic responder | 27 (60%) | |
| Stable metabolic disease | 17 (38%) | |
| Progressive metabolic disease | 1 (2%) |
* Values represent the number of patients (%) or median (range) for all attributes.
Figure 1FDG-PET/CT images for an example PET non-responder patient (a,c) and PET responder patient (b,d), acquired pretreatment (a,b) and mid-treatment (c,d). Tumor volumes are displayed as blue/green contours.
Figure 2Overall schematic of survival outcome prediction pipeline using multitask feature selection across time points from single/multimodality radiomics (left) and steps inside the stratified cross-validation folds for multitask and gradient boosting survival (right). Note that feature selection and nested grid search for hyperparameter tuning were constrained to training folds and blinded to test folds, in order to prevent data leakage for unbiased performance evaluation.
Prediction performance of overall survival for the proposed model of FLSGL combined with CWGBS using a single time point or multiple time points for each modality. Values represent c-index (95% confidence interval) with p-values of the Friedman ANOVA test for multitask versus single task learning, as well as p-values of the Wilcoxon signed rank test for multitask learning of each modality relative to the benchmark model using clinical variables.
| Modality | Single Task | Single Task | Multitask | Friedman | Wilcoxon |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FDG-PET | 0.66 (0.61–0.70) | 0.63 (0.56–0.67) | 0.71 (0.67–0.75) | <0.01 | 0.02 |
| CT | 0.56 (0.52–0.61) | 0.64 (0.60–0.71) | 0.64 (0.59–0.72) | 0.01 | 0.23 |
| SPECT * | 0.60 (0.57–0.63) | - | - | - | 0.20 |
| Clinical Variables | 0.63 (0.58–0.70) | 0.62 (0.56–0.67) | 0.65 (0.61–0.71) | 0.06 | reference |
* No perfusion SPECT images acquired mid-RT.
Figure 3Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and c-index values for different modalities.
Prediction performance of overall survival in terms of c-index for the proposed model of a single time point or multiple time points for the combination of modalities. Here, FLSGL was applied on each modality at single-/multi-time points separately and results (each row) were ensembled using CWGBS at single-/multi-time points for different multimodality combinations. p-values of the Friedman ANOVA test are reported for each modality combination between multitask and single-task learning time points.
| Modalities | Single Task | Single Task | Multitask | Friedman |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FDG-PET + CT | 0.62 (0.58–0.66) | 0.63 (0.59–0.68) | 0.66 (0.63–0.70) | 0.03 |
| FDG-PET + SPECT | 0.59 (0.56–0.63) | 0.63 (0.56–0.67) | 0.65 (0.61–0.69) | 0.01 |
| FDG-PET + Clinical Variables | 0.63 (0.58–0.68) | 0.60 (0.55–0.66) | 0.67 (0.64–0.72) | <0.01 |
| FDG-PET + CT + SPECT | 0.57 (0.54–0.61) | 0.60 (0.56–0.65) | 0.63 (0.59–0.67) | <0.01 |
| FDG-PET + CT + SPECT + Clinical Variables | 0.57 (0.53–0.61) | 0.61 (0.55–0.66) | 0.62 (0.57–0.67) | 0.01 |
Figure 4Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival in test folds stratified by high-risk (>median prediction) versus low-risk (
Comparison of FDG PET radiomics overall survival prediction models between the proposed FLSGL and CWGBS with different feature selection and survival regression models (DR—delta radiomics; Coxnet—Cox net survival model; RR-RFE—ridge regression recursive feature elimination; RF—random forest; FLSGL—fused Laplacian sparse group LASSO; RSF—random survival forest; GBS—gradient boosting survival; SSVM—survival support vector machine; CWGBS—component-wise gradient boosting survival). Bolded values denote highest level of performance.
| Feature Selection | Survival Analysis | Time Points | No. of Features | C-Index (95% Confidence Interval) | IPA (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LASSO | CWGBS | Pre-RT | 3–7 | 0.59 (0.55–0.66) | 22 |
| LASSO+DR | CWGBS | pre-/mid-RT | 1–6 | 0.45 (0.40–0.51) | 12 |
| RF+DR | CWGBS | pre-/mid-RT | 2–10 | 0.52 (0.48–0.58) | 15 |
| RR-RFE | CWGBS | Pre-RT | 2–7 | 0.54 (0.51–0.60) | 24 |
| RF | CWGBS | Pre-RT | 3–12 | 0.61 (0.55–0.66) | 21 |
| FLSGL | RSF | pre-/mid-RT | 1–5 | 0.65 (0.60–0.70) | 28 |
| FLSGL | Coxnet | pre-/mid-RT | 1–5 | 0.67 (0.63–0.72) | 27 |
| FLSGL | SSVM | pre-/mid-RT | 1–5 | 0.62 (0.59–0.69) | - * |
| FLSGL | GBS | pre-/mid-RT | 1–5 | 0.63 (0.58–0.68) | 21 |
|
|
|
| 1–5 |
|
|
* Brier score-derived IPA is not calculated as SSVM does not generate predicted probability.
Figure 5Heatmap of c-index values of overall survival prediction for different feature selection and survival analysis algorithms using FDG-PET radiomics (DR—delta radiomics; Coxnet—Cox net survival model; RR-RFE—ridge regression recursive feature elimination; RF—random forest; RSF—random survival forest; GBS—gradient boosting survival; SSVM—survival support vector machine; GBS—gradient boosting survival).
Figure 6Heatmap of IPA values of overall survival prediction for different feature selection and survival analysis algorithms using FDG-PET radiomics (DR—delta radiomics; Coxnet—Cox net survival model; RR-RFE—ridge regression recursive feature elimination; RF—random forest; RSF—random survival forest; GBS—gradient boosting survival; SSVM—survival support vector machine; GBS—gradient boosting survival).