nach oben

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Erschienen in:

25.01.2020 | Original Article

¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT radiomic predictors of pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients

verfasst von: Panli Li, Xiuying Wang, Chongrui Xu, Cheng Liu, Chaojie Zheng, Michael J Fulham, Dagan Feng, Lisheng Wang, Shaoli Song, Gang Huang

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Ausgabe 5/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is commonly accepted as the gold standard to assess outcome after NAC in breast cancer patients. ¹⁸F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has unique value in tumor staging, predicting prognosis, and evaluating treatment response. Our aim was to determine if we could identify radiomic predictors from PET/CT in breast cancer patient therapeutic efficacy prior to NAC.

Methods

This retrospective study included 100 breast cancer patients who received NAC; there were 2210 PET/CT radiomic features extracted. Unsupervised and supervised machine learning models were used to identify the prognostic radiomic predictors through the following: (1) selection of the significant (p < 0.05) imaging features from consensus clustering and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test; (2) selection of the most discriminative features via univariate random forest (Uni-RF) and the Pearson correlation matrix (PCM); and (3) determination of the most predictive features from a traversal feature selection (TFS) based on a multivariate random forest (RF). The prediction model was constructed with RF and then validated with 10-fold cross-validation for 30 times and then independently validated. The performance of the radiomic predictors was measured in terms of area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

Results

The PET/CT radiomic predictors achieved a prediction accuracy of 0.857 (AUC = 0.844) on the training split set and 0.767 (AUC = 0.722) on the independent validation set. When age was incorporated, the accuracy for the split set increased to 0.857 (AUC = 0.958) and 0.8 (AUC = 0.73) for the independent validation set and both outperformed the clinical prediction model. We also found a close association between the radiomic features, receptor expression, and tumor T stage.

Conclusion

Radiomic predictors from pre-treatment PET/CT scans when combined with patient age were able to predict pCR after NAC. We suggest that these data will be valuable for patient management.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Hong W, Dong E. The past, present and future of breast cancer research in China. Cancer Lett. 2014;351:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2014.04.007.CrossRefPubMed

Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, Zhang S, Zeng H, Bray F, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:115–32. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21338.CrossRefPubMed

Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, Blair SL, Burstein HJ, Cyr A, et al. NCCN guidelines insights breast cancer, version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw JNCCN. 2015;13:1475–85.CrossRef

Kong X, Moran MS, Zhang N, Haffty B, Yang Q. Meta-analysis confirms achieving pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts favourable prognosis for breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:2084–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.06.014.CrossRefPubMed

Caudle AS, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hunt KK, Liu P, Pusztai L, Symmans WF, et al. Predictors of tumor progression during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1821–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.3286.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chu W, Jin W, Liu D, Wang J, Geng C, Chen L, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in identifying breast cancer pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2018;9:7088–100. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.23195.CrossRefPubMed

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026.CrossRefPubMed

Shang J, Ling X, Zhang L, Tang Y, Xiao Z, Cheng Y, et al. Comparison of RECIST, EORTC criteria and PERCIST for evaluation of early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1945–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3420-7.CrossRefPubMed

Fuster D, Duch J, Paredes P, Velasco M, Munoz M, Santamaria G, et al. Preoperative staging of large primary breast cancer with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared with conventional imaging procedures. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4746–51. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.17.1496.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Groheux D, Biard L, Giacchetti S, Teixeira L, Hindie E, Cuvier C, et al. (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT for the early evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment in triple-negative breast cancer: influence of the chemotherapy regimen. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:536–43. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.163907.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Groheux D, Sanna A, Majdoub M, de Cremoux P, Giacchetti S, Teixeira L, et al. Baseline tumor 18F-FDG uptake and modifications after 2 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy are prognostic of outcome in ER+/HER2- breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:824–31. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.154138.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Groheux D, Mankoff D, Espie M, Hindie E. (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT in the early prediction of pathological response in aggressive subtypes of breast cancer: review of the literature and recommendations for use in clinical trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:983–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3295-z.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Hatt M, Tixier F, Visvikis D, Cheze Le Rest C. Radiomics in PET/CT: more than meets the eye? J Nucl Med. 2017;58:365–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.184655.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT, Parmar C, Grossmann P, Carvalho S, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4006. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5006.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, Carvalho S, van Stiphout RG, Granton P, et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:441–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.036.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Yip SS, Aerts HJ. Applications and limitations of radiomics. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61:R150–66. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/13/R150.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Kirienko M, Cozzi L, Antunovic L, Lozza L, Fogliata A, Voulaz E, et al. Prediction of disease-free survival by the PET/CT radiomic signature in non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing surgery. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:207–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3837-7.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ha S, Park S, Bang JI, Kim EK, Lee HY. Metabolic radiomics for pretreatment (18)F-FDG PET/CT to characterize locally advanced breast cancer: histopathologic characteristics, response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and prognosis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1556. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01524-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Goetz MP, Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Abraham J, Aft R, Allison KH, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: breast cancer, version 3.2018. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2019;17:118–26. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0009.CrossRef

20.

Chinese Anti-Cancer Association CoBC. Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment guidelines of China Anti Cancer Association(version 2019). China Oncol. 2019;29:609–80.

21.

Kim HI, Kim K, Park SY, Choe JH, Kim JH, Kim JS, et al. Refining the eighth edition AJCC TNM classification and prognostic groups for papillary thyroid cancer with lateral nodal metastasis. Oral Oncol. 2018;78:80–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.01.021.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2784–95. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.6529.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3997–4013. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Biau G, Scornet E. A random forest guided tour. Test. 2016;25:197–227.CrossRef

25.

Zhu L, Kolesov I, Gao Y, Kikinis R, Tannenbaum A. An effective interactive medical image segmentation method using fast growcut. MICCAI workshop on interactive medical image computing; 2014.

26.

Siavashpour Z, Aghamiri MR, Jaberi R, Dehghan-Manshadi HR, Sedaghat M, Kirisits C. Evaluating the utility of “3D Slicer” as a fast and independent tool to assess intrafractional organ dose variations in gynecological brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2016;15:514–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2016.03.009.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin JC, Pujol S, et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30:1323–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Zwanenburg A, Leger S, Vallières M, Löck S. Image biomarker standardisation initiative. arXiv preprint arXiv:161207003. 2016.

29.

Van Griethuysen JJ, Fedorov A, Parmar C, Hosny A, Aucoin N, Narayan V, et al. Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res. 2017;77:e104–e7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Ribeiro MT, Singh S, Guestrin C. Why should i trust you?: explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining: ACM; 2016. p. 1135–44.

31.

Antunovic L, De Sanctis R, Cozzi L, Kirienko M, Sagona A, Torrisi R, et al. PET/CT radiomics in breast cancer: promising tool for prediction of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04313-8.

32.

Ogino K, Nakajima M, Kakuta M, Hayashi M, Yamaguchi S, Tsuchioka T, et al. Utility of FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of the response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int Surg. 2014;99:309–18. https://doi.org/10.9738/INTSURG-D-13-00044.1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Farrugia MK, Wen S, Jacobson GM, Salkeni MA. Prognostic factors in breast cancer patients evaluated by positron-emission tomography/computed tomography before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. World J Nucl Med. 2018;17:275–80. https://doi.org/10.4103/wjnm.WJNM_84_17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Schmitz AMT, Teixeira SC, Pengel KE, Loo CE, Vogel WV, Wesseling J, et al. Monitoring tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in breast cancer subtypes. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0176782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176782.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Spring L, Greenup R, Niemierko A, Schapira L, Haddad S, Jimenez R, et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and long-term outcomes among young women with breast cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2017;15:1216–23. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2017.0158.CrossRef

36.

Collins LC, Marotti JD, Gelber S, Cole K, Ruddy K, Kereakoglow S, et al. Pathologic features and molecular phenotype by patient age in a large cohort of young women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131:1061–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1872-9.CrossRefPubMed

37.

De Lima VF, Silva TB, Da Costa Vieira RA, Da Costa AM, Scapulatempo C, Fregnani JH, et al. Retrospective analysis of breast cancer prognosis among young and older women in a Brazilian cohort of 738 patients, 1985-2002. Oncol Lett. 2016;12:4911–24. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2016.5360.CrossRef

38.

Ajmani GS, James TA, Kantor O, Wang CH, Yao KA. The impact of facility volume on rates of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy used in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3157–66. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5969-1.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Haque W, Verma V, Hatch S, Suzanne Klimberg V, Brian Butler E, Teh BS. Response rates and pathologic complete response by breast cancer molecular subtype following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;170:559–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4801-3.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Huang SY, Franc BL, Harnish RJ, Liu G, Mitra D, Copeland TP, et al. Exploration of PET and MRI radiomic features for decoding breast cancer phenotypes and prognosis. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2018;4:24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-018-0078-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Henderson S, Purdie C, Michie C, Evans A, Lerski R, Johnston M, et al. Interim heterogeneity changes measured using entropy texture features on T2-weighted MRI at 3.0 T are associated with pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:4602–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4850-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Chen R, Ye Y, Yang C, Peng Y, Zong B, Qu F, et al. Assessment of the predictive role of pretreatment Ki-67 and Ki-67 changes in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to the molecular classification: a retrospective study of 1010 patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;170:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4730-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Schlotter CM, Tietze L, Vogt U, Heinsen CV, Hahn A. Ki67 and lymphocytes in the pretherapeutic core biopsy of primary invasive breast cancer: positive markers of therapy response prediction and superior survival. Horm Mol Biol Clin Invest. 2017;32. https://doi.org/10.1515/hmbci-2017-0022.

44.

Ellsworth RE, Blackburn HL, Shriver CD, Soon-Shiong P, Ellsworth DL. Molecular heterogeneity in breast cancer: state of the science and implications for patient care. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2017;64:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.08.025.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Woolson RF, Bean JA, Rojas PB. Sample size for case-control studies using Cochran’s statistic. Biometrics. 1986;42:927–32.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Sollini M, Cozzi L, Antunovic L, Chiti A, Kirienko M. PET radiomics in NSCLC: state of the art and a proposal for harmonization of methodology. Sci Rep. 2017;7:358. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00426-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology. 2016;278:563–77. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151169.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Chalkidou A, O’Doherty MJ, Marsden PK. False discovery rates in PET and CT studies with texture features: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0124165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124165.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: 18F-FDG PET/CT radiomic predictors of pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients
verfasst von: Panli Li
Xiuying Wang
Chongrui Xu
Cheng Liu
Chaojie Zheng
Michael J Fulham
Dagan Feng
Lisheng Wang
Shaoli Song
Gang Huang
Publikationsdatum: 25.01.2020
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe 5/2020
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04684-3

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT radiomic predictors of pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2020

The role of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in predicting the histopathological response in locally advanced cervical carcinoma treated by chemo-radiotherapy followed by radical surgery: a prospective study

Prognostic significance of semi-quantitative FDG-PET parameters in stage I non-small cell lung cancer treated with carbon-ion radiotherapy

“Luke! Luke! Don’t! It’s a trap!”—spotlight on bias in animal experiments in nuclear oncology

Quantitative PET imaging of PD-L1 expression in xenograft and syngeneic tumour models using a site-specifically labelled PD-L1 antibody

Influx rate constant of 18F-FDG increases in metastatic lymph nodes of non-small cell lung cancer patients

Imaging and clinical features of patients with 2019 novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2