Advertisement

Pretreatment prediction of immunoscore in hepatocellular cancer: a radiomics-based clinical model based on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI imaging

  • Shuling Chen
  • Shiting Feng
  • Jingwei Wei
  • Fei Liu
  • Bin Li
  • Xin Li
  • Yang Hou
  • Dongsheng Gu
  • Mimi Tang
  • Han Xiao
  • Yingmei Jia
  • Sui Peng
  • Jie TianEmail author
  • Ming KuangEmail author
Magnetic Resonance
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Immunoscore evaluates the density of CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in both the tumor core and invasive margin. Pretreatment prediction of immunoscore in hepatocellular cancer (HCC) is important for precision immunotherapy. We aimed to develop a radiomics model based on gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI for pretreatment prediction of immunoscore (0–2 vs. 3–4) in HCC.

Materials and methods

The study included 207 (training cohort: n = 150; validation cohort: n = 57) HCC patients with hepatectomy who underwent preoperative Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. The volumes of interest enclosing hepatic lesions including intratumoral and peritumoral regions were manually delineated in the hepatobiliary phase of MRI images, from which 1044 quantitative features were extracted and analyzed. Extremely randomized tree method was used to select radiomics features for building radiomics model. Predicting performance in immunoscore was compared among three models: (1) using only intratumoral radiomics features (intratumoral radiomics model); (2) using combined intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics features (combined radiomics model); (3) using clinical data and selected combined radiomics features (combined radiomics-based clinical model).

Results

The combined radiomics model showed a better predicting performance in immunoscore than intratumoral radiomics model (AUC, 0.904 (95% CI 0.855–0.953) vs. 0.823 (95% CI 0.747–0.899)). The combined radiomics-based clinical model showed an improvement over the combined radiomics model in predicting immunoscore (AUC, 0·926 (95% CI 0·884–0·967) vs. 0·904 (95% CI 0·855–0·953)), although differences were not statistically significant. Results were confirmed in validation cohort and calibration curves showed good agreement.

Conclusion

The MRI-based combined radiomics nomogram is effective in predicting immunoscore in HCC and may help making treatment decisions.

Key Points

• Radiomics obtained from Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI help predicting immunoscore in hepatocellular carcinoma.

• Combined intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics are superior to intratumoral radiomics only in predicting immunoscore.

• We developed a combined clinical and radiomicsnomogram to predict immunoscore in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Keywords

Carcinoma Hepatocellular Gadolinium ethoxybenzyl DTPA Magnetic resonance imaging Immunotherapy 

Abbreviations

AFP

Alpha-fetoprotein

AST

Aspartate transaminase

CT

Center of the tumor

DAB

Diaminobenzidine

DCA

Decision curve analysis

Gd-EOB-DTPA

Gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine

GGT

γ-Glutamyl transpeptadase

GLCM

Gray level co-occurrence matrix

GLRCM

Gray level run-length matrix

HBP

Hepatobiliary phase

HCC

Hepatocellular carcinoma

ICB

Immune checkpoint blockade

ICC

Intra-class correlation coefficient

IM

Invasive margin

NPV

Negative predictive value

PD-1

Programmed death receptor 1

PD-L1

Programmed death-ligand 1

PPV

Positive predictive value

TIL

Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes

TME

Tumor microenvironment

VOI

Volumes of interest

Notes

Funding

This study has received funding by grants from the Guangzhou Science and Technology Program key projects (No. 201803010057) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81771908, 81571750). This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology of China under Grant No. 2017YFA0205200, National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 81227901, 81527805, Chinese Academy of Sciences under Grant No. GJJSTD20170004 and QYZDJ-SSW-JSC005, Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission under Grant No. Z161100002616022, Z171100000117023, the Key International Cooperation Projects of the Chinese Academy of Sciences under Grant No. 173211KYSB20160053. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Ming Kuang.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Two of the authors (Fei Liu, Bin Li) have significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2018_5986_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12.2 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 12520 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Tabrizian P, Jibara G, Shrager B, Schwartz M, Roayaie S (2015) Recurrence of hepatocellular cancer after resection: patterns, treatments, and prognosis. Ann Surg 261:947–955Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    El-Khoueiry AB, Sangro B, Yau T et al (2017) Nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 040): an open-label, non-comparative, phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion trial. Lancet 389:2492–2502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sangro B, Gomez-Martin C, de la Mata M et al (2013) A clinical trial of CTLA-4 blockade with tremelimumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol 59:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Palucka AK, Coussens LM (2016) The basis of oncoimmunology. Cell 164:1233–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim YJ (2015) Subverting the adaptive immune resistance mechanism to improve clinical responses to immune checkpoint blockade therapy. Oncoimmunology 3:e954868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taube JM (2014) Unleashing the immune system: PD-1 and PD-Ls in the pre-treatment tumor microenvironment and correlation with response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Oncoimmunology 11:e963413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhou G, Sprengers D, Boor PPC et al (2017) Antibodies against immune checkpoint molecules restore functions of tumor-infiltrating T cells in hepatocellular carcinomas. Gastroenterology 153:1107–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Galon J, Mlecnik B, Bindea G et al (2014) Towards the introduction of the ‘immunoscore’ in the classification of malignant tumours. J Pathol 232:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galon J, Costes A, Sanchez-Cabo F et al (2006) Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science 313:1960–1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahmoud SM, Paish EC, Powe DG et al (2011) Tumor-infiltrating CD8+ lymphocytes predict clinical outcome in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:1949–1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brunner SM, Rubner C, Kesselring R et al (2015) Tumor-infiltrating, interleukin-33–producing effector-memory CD8+ T cells in resected hepatocellular carcinoma prolong patient survival. Hepatology 61:1957–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jiang Y, Zhang Q, Hu Y et al (2018) ImmunoScore signature: a prognostic and predictive tool in gastric cancer. Ann Surg 267:504–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donnem T, Hald SM, Paulsen EE et al (2015) Stromal CD8+ T-cell density-a promising supplement to TNM staging in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 21:2635–2643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gabrielson A, Wu Y, Wang H et al (2016) Intratumoral CD3 and CD8 T-cell densities associated with relapse free survival in HCC. Cancer Immunol Res 4:419–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sun C, Xu J, Song J et al (2015) The predictive value of centre tumour CD8+ T cells in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with immunoscore. Oncotarget 6:35602–35615PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yao Q, Bao X, Xue R et al (2017) Prognostic value of immunoscore to identify mortality outcomes in adults with HBV-related primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Medicine (Baltimore) 96(17):e67356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garnelo M, Tan A, Her Z et al (2017) Interaction between tumor-infiltrating B cells and T cells controls the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut 66:342–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shields AF, Jacobs P, Sznol M et al (2018) Immune modulation therapy and imaging: workshop report. J Nucl Med 59:410–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ku YJ, Kim HH, Cha JH et al (2016) Correlation between MRI and the level of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in patients with triple negative breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:1146–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ku YJ, Kim HH, Cha JH et al (2018) Predicting the level of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in patients with triple negative breast cancer: usefulness of breast MRI computer-aided detection and diagnosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 47:760–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kumar V, Gu Y, Basu S et al (2012) Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging 30:1234–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sun R, Limkin EJ, Dercle L et al (2017) Computational medical imaging (radiomics) and potential for immuno-oncology. Cancer Radiother 21:648–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Savadjiev P, Chong J, Dohan A et al (2018) Demystification of AI-driven medical image interpretation: past, present and future. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5674-x
  24. 24.
    Li Y, Liu X, Xu K et al (2018) MRI features can predict EGFR expression in lower grade gliomas: a voxel-based radiomic analysis. Eur Radiol 28:356–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Esteva A, Kuprel B, Novoa RA et al (2017) Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature 542:115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Braman NM, Etesami M, Prasanna P et al (2017) Intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for the pretreatment prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on breast DCE-MRI. Breast Cancer Res 19:57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rutman AM, Kuo MD (2009) Radiogenomics: creating a link between molecular diagnostics and diagnostic imaging. Eur J Radiol 70:232–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wu M, Tan H, Gao F et al (2018) Predicting the grade of hepatocellular carcinoma based on non-contrast-enhanced MRI radiomics signature. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5787-2
  29. 29.
    Hamm B, Staks T, Mühler A et al (1995) Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging. Radiology 195:785–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Choi JW, Lee JM, Kim SJ et al (2013) Hepatocellular carcinoma: imaging patterns on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images and their value as an imaging biomarker. Radiology 267:776–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang B, Tian J, Dong D et al (2017) Radiomics features of multiparametric MRI as novel prognostic factors in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 23:4259–4269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bakr S, Echegaray S, Shah R et al (2017) Noninvasive radiomics signature based on quantitative analysis of computed tomography images as a surrogate for microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: a pilot study. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 4:041303Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huang YQ, Liang CH, He L et al (2016) Development and validation of a radiomics nomogram for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 34:2157–2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li H, Zhu Y, Burnside ES et al (2016) MR imaging radiomics signatures for predicting the risk of breast cancer recurrence as given by research versions of MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and PAM50 gene assays. Radiology 281:382–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Galon J, Pagès F, Marincola FM et al (2012) Cancer classification using the immunoscore: a worldwide task force. J Transl Med 10:205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leijenaar RT, Carvalho S, Velazquez ER et al (2013) Stability of FDG-PET radiomics features: an integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability. Acta Oncol 52:1391–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Geurts P, Ernst D, Wehenkel L (2006) Extremely randomized trees. Mach Learn 63:3–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Marée R, Geurts P, Wehenkel L (2007) Random subwindows and extremely randomized trees for image classification in cell biology. BMC Cell Biol 8(Suppl 1):S2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bourgier C, Colinge J, Aillères N et al (2015) Radiomics: definition and clinical development. Cancer Radiother 19:532–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grossmann P, Stringfield O, El-Hachem N et al (2017) Defining the biological basis of radiomic phenotypes in lung cancer. Elife 6.  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23421
  42. 42.
    Fox MJ, Gibbs P, Pickles MD (2016) Minkowski functionals: an MRI texture analysis tool for determination of the aggressiveness of breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:903–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ganeshan B, Goh V, Mandeville HC, Ng QS, Hoskin PJ, Miles KA (2013) Non-small cell lung cancer: histopathologic correlates for texture parameters at CT. Radiology 266:326–336Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Segal E, Sirlin CB, Ooi C et al (2007) Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat Biotechnol 25:675–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional UltrasoundThe First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyThe First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Institute of AutomationChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular ImagingBeijingChina
  5. 5.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  6. 6.Clinical Trial UnitThe First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  7. 7.GE HealthCare ChinaShanghaiChina
  8. 8.Department of MathematicsJinan UniversityGuangzhouChina
  9. 9.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyThe First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  10. 10.Department of Liver SurgeryThe First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations