Advertisement

Prediction of outcome using pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI radiomics in locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy

  • François Lucia
  • Dimitris Visvikis
  • Marie-Charlotte Desseroit
  • Omar Miranda
  • Jean-Pierre Malhaire
  • Philippe Robin
  • Olivier Pradier
  • Mathieu Hatt
  • Ulrike Schick
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to determine if radiomics features from 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images could contribute to prognoses in cervical cancer.

Methods

One hundred and two patients (69 for training and 33 for testing) with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) receiving chemoradiotherapy (CRT) from 08/2010 to 12/2016 were enrolled in this study. 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI examination [T1, T2, T1C, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)] were performed for each patient before CRT. Primary tumor volumes were delineated with the fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian algorithm in the PET images and with 3D Slicer™ in the MRI images. Radiomics features (intensity, shape, and texture) were extracted and their prognostic value was compared with clinical parameters for recurrence-free and locoregional control.

Results

In the training cohort, median follow-up was 3.0 years (range, 0.43–6.56 years) and relapse occurred in 36% of patients. In univariate analysis, FIGO stage (I–II vs. III–IV) and metabolic response (complete vs. non-complete) were probably associated with outcome without reaching statistical significance, contrary to several radiomics features from both PET and MRI sequences. Multivariate analysis in training test identified Grey Level Non UniformityGLRLM in PET and EntropyGLCM in ADC maps from DWI MRI as independent prognostic factors. These had significantly higher prognostic power than clinical parameters, as evaluated in the testing cohort with accuracy of 94% for predicting recurrence and 100% for predicting lack of loco-regional control (versus ~50–60% for clinical parameters).

Conclusions

In LACC treated with CRT, radiomics features such as EntropyGLCM and GLNUGLRLM from functional imaging DWI-MRI and PET, respectively, are independent predictors of recurrence and loco-regional control with significantly higher prognostic power than usual clinical parameters. Further research is warranted for their validation, which may justify more aggressive treatment in patients identified with high probability of recurrence.

Keywords

Chemoradiotherapy Cervical cancer Radiomics Prediction FDG PET MRI 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

259_2017_3898_MOESM1_ESM.docx (5.5 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 5659 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rose PG, Java J, Whitney CW, Stehman FB, Lanciano R, Thomas GM, et al. Nomograms predicting progression-free survival, overall survival, and pelvic recurrence in locally advanced cervical cancer developed from an analysis of identifiable prognostic factors in patients from NRG oncology/Gynecologic oncology group randomized trials of chemoradiotherapy. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2015;33(19):2136–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moore KN, Java JJ, Slaughter KN, Rose PG, Lanciano R, DiSilvestro PA, et al. Is age a prognostic biomarker for survival among women with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiation? An NRG oncology/Gynecologic oncology group ancillary data analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143(2):294–301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herrera FG. Prior JO: the role of PET/CT in cervical cancer. Front Oncol. 2013;3:34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choi J, Kim HJ, Jeong YH, Lee JH, Cho A, Yun M, et al. The role of (18) F-FDG PET/CT in assessing therapy response in cervix cancer after concurrent Chemoradiation therapy. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;48(2):130–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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(4):441–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rios Velazquez E, Parmar C, Liu Y, Coroller TP, Cruz G, Stringfield O, et al. Somatic mutations drive distinct imaging phenotypes in lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2017;77(14):3922–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yip SS, Aerts HJ. Applications and limitations of radiomics. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(13):R150–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ho KC, Fang YH, Chung HW, Yen TC, Ho TY, Chou HH, et al. A preliminary investigation into textural features of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity in (18)F-FDG PET for overall survival prognosis in patients with bulky cervical cancer treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Am J Nuclear Med Molec Imaging. 2016;6(3):166–75.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torheim T, Groendahl AR, Andersen EK, Lyng H, Malinen E, Kvaal K, et al. Cluster analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI reveals tumor subregions related to locoregional relapse for cervical cancer patients. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(11):1294–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chung HH, Kang SY, Ha S, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative intratumoral FDG uptake heterogeneity in early stage uterine cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2016;27(2):e15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guan Y, Li W, Jiang Z, Chen Y, Liu S, He J, et al. Whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient-based entropy-related parameters for characterizing cervical cancers: initial findings. Acad Radiol. 2016;23(12):1559–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reuze S, Orlhac F, Chargari C, Nioche C, Limkin E, Riet F, et al. Prediction of cervical cancer recurrence using textural features extracted from 18F-FDG PET images acquired with different scanners. Oncotarget. 2017;8(26):43169–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lim K, Small W Jr, Portelance L, Creutzberg C, Jurgenliemk-Schulz IM, Mundt A, et al. Consensus guidelines for delineation of clinical target volume for intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy for the definitive treatment of cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(2):348–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nuclear Med : Off Publ, Soc Nuclear Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–50S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Turzo A, Roux C, Visvikis D. A fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian segmentation approach for volume determination in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009;28(6):881–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Descourt P, Dekker A, De Ruysscher D, Oellers M, et al. Accurate automatic delineation of heterogeneous functional volumes in positron emission tomography for oncology applications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77(1):301–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Velazquez ER, Parmar C, Jermoumi M, Mak RH, van Baardwijk A, Fennessy FM, et al. Volumetric CT-based segmentation of NSCLC using 3D-slicer. Sci Rep. 2013;3:3529.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alex Zwanenburg SL, Martin Vallières, Steffen Löck. Image biomarker standardisation initiative - feature definitions. 2017.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Desseroit MC, et al. Comparison of three quantization methods for the calculation of textural features in PET/CT images: impact on prognostic models in non-small cell lung cancer. IEEE Nucl Sci Sym Med Imaging Conf 2016.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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(5):e0124165.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Eur J Clin Investig. 2015;45(2):204–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Naik A, Gurjar OP, Gupta KL, Singh K, Nag P, Bhandari V. Comparison of dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity of intensity-modulated and three-dimensional radiotherapy in patients with cervix carcinoma: a randomized prospective study. Cancer Radiotherapie : J de la Societe francaise de radiotherapie oncologique. 2016;20(5):370–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Antunes J, Viswanath S, Rusu M, Valls L, Hoimes C, Avril N, et al. Radiomics analysis on FLT-PET/MRI for characterization of early treatment response in renal cell carcinoma: a proof-of-concept study. Transl Oncol. 2016;9(2):155–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eminowicz G, McCormack M. Variability of clinical target volume delineation for definitive radiotherapy in cervix cancer. Radiotherapy Oncol : J Europe Soc Therapeut Radiol Oncol. 2015;117(3):542–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Egger J, Kapur T, Fedorov A, Pieper S, Miller JV, Veeraraghavan H, et al. GBM volumetry using the 3D slicer medical image computing platform. Sci Rep. 2013;3:1364.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hatt M, Lee JA, Schmidtlein CR, Naqa IE, Caldwell C, De Bernardi E, et al. Classification and evaluation strategies of auto-segmentation approaches for PET: report of AAPM task group no. 211. Med Phys. 2017a;44(6):e1–e42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hatt M, Tixier F, Pierce L, Kinahan PE, Le Rest CC, Visvikis D. Characterization of PET/CT images using texture analysis: the past, the present... Any future? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017b;44(1):151–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Galavis PE, Hollensen C, Jallow N, Paliwal B, Jeraj R. Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol. 2010;49(7):1012–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hatt M, Majdoub M, Vallieres M, Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Groheux D, et al. 18F-FDG PET uptake characterization through texture analysis: investigating the complementary nature of heterogeneity and functional tumor volume in a multi-cancer site patient cohort. J Nucl Med : Off Publ, Soc Nucl Med. 2015;56(1):38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brooks FJ, Grigsby PW. The effect of small tumor volumes on studies of intratumoral heterogeneity of tracer uptake. J Nucl Med : Off Publ, Soc Nucl Med. 2014;55(1):37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parmar C, Grossmann P, Bussink J, Lambin P, Aerts HJ. Machine learning methods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13087.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Incoronato M, Aiello M, Infante T, Cavaliere C, Grimaldi AM, Mirabelli P, et al. Radiogenomic analysis of oncological data: a technical survey. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(4)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cancer Genome Atlas Research N, Albert Einstein College of M, analytical biological S, Barretos cancer H, Baylor College of M, Beckman Research Institute of City of H, Buck Institute for research on a, Canada’s Michael smith genome sciences C, Harvard medical S, FGCC H, et al. Integrated genomic and molecular characterization of cervical cancer. Nature. 2017;543(7645):378–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Lucia
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dimitris Visvikis
    • 3
  • Marie-Charlotte Desseroit
    • 3
  • Omar Miranda
    • 1
  • Jean-Pierre Malhaire
    • 1
  • Philippe Robin
    • 4
  • Olivier Pradier
    • 1
    • 3
  • Mathieu Hatt
    • 3
  • Ulrike Schick
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Radiation Oncology DepartmentUniversity HospitalBrestFrance
  2. 2.Service de RadiothérapieCHRU MorvanCedexFrance
  3. 3.LaTIM, INSERM, UMR 1101University of Brest, ISBAM, UBO, UBLBrestFrance
  4. 4.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentUniversity HospitalBrestFrance

Personalised recommendations