1
|
Laudicella R, Comelli A, Liberini V, Vento A, Stefano A, Spataro A, Crocè L, Baldari S, Bambaci M, Deandreis D, Arico’ D, Ippolito M, Gaeta M, Alongi P, Minutoli F, Burger IA, Baldari S. [68Ga]DOTATOC PET/CT Radiomics to Predict the Response in GEP-NETs Undergoing [177Lu]DOTATOC PRRT: The “Theragnomics” Concept. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14040984. [PMID: 35205733 PMCID: PMC8870649 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14040984] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2022] [Revised: 02/12/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Despite impressive results, almost 30% of NET do not respond to PRRT and no well-established criteria are suitable to predict response. Therefore, we assessed the predictive value of radiomics [68Ga]DOTATOC PET/CT images pre-PRRT in metastatic GEP NET. We retrospectively analyzed the predictive value of radiomics in 324 SSTR-2-positive lesions from 38 metastatic GEP-NET patients (nine G1, 27 G2, and two G3) who underwent restaging [68Ga]DOTATOC PET/CT before complete PRRT with [177Lu]DOTATOC. Clinical, laboratory, and radiological follow-up data were collected for at least six months after the last cycle. Through LifeX, we extracted 65 PET features for each lesion. Grading, PRRT number of cycles, and cumulative activity, pre- and post-PRRT CgA values were also considered as additional clinical features. [68Ga]DOTATOC PET/CT follow-up with the same scanner for each patient determined the disease status (progression vs. response in terms of stability/reduction/disappearance) for each lesion. All features (PET and clinical) were also correlated with follow-up data in a per-site analysis (liver, lymph nodes, and bone), and for features significantly associated with response, the Δradiomics for each lesion was assessed on follow-up [68Ga]DOTATOC PET/CT performed until nine months post-PRRT. A statistical system based on the point-biserial correlation and logistic regression analysis was used for the reduction and selection of the features. Discriminant analysis was used, instead, to obtain the predictive model using the k-fold strategy to split data into training and validation sets. From the reduction and selection process, HISTO_Skewness and HISTO_Kurtosis were able to predict response with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC ROC), sensitivity, and specificity of 0.745, 80.6%, 67.2% and 0.722, 61.2%, 75.9%, respectively. Moreover, a combination of three features (HISTO_Skewness; HISTO_Kurtosis, and Grading) did not improve the AUC significantly with 0.744. SUVmax. However, it could not predict response to PRRT (p = 0.49, AUC 0.523). The presented preliminary “theragnomics” model proved to be superior to conventional quantitative parameters to predict the response of GEP-NET lesions in patients treated with complete [177Lu]DOTATOC PRRT, regardless of the lesion site.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Riccardo Laudicella
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morpho-Functional Imaging, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy; (A.V.); (A.S.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (S.B.)
- Ri.MED Foundation, 90134 Palermo, Italy;
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, 8091 Zürich, Switzerland;
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Fondazione Istituto G.Giglio, 90015 Cefalù, Italy;
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +39-320-032-0150
| | | | - Virginia Liberini
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy; (V.L.); (D.D.)
- Nuclear Medicine Department, S. Croce e Carle Hospital, 12100 Cuneo, Italy
| | - Antonio Vento
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morpho-Functional Imaging, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy; (A.V.); (A.S.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (S.B.)
| | - Alessandro Stefano
- Institute of Molecular Bioimaging and Physiology, National Research Council (IBFM-CNR), 90015 Cefalù, Italy;
| | - Alessandro Spataro
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morpho-Functional Imaging, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy; (A.V.); (A.S.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (S.B.)
| | - Ludovica Crocè
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morpho-Functional Imaging, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy; (A.V.); (A.S.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (S.B.)
| | - Sara Baldari
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Cannizzaro Hospital, 95126 Catania, Italy; (S.B.); (M.I.)
| | - Michelangelo Bambaci
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Humanitas Oncological Centre of Catania, 95125 Catania, Italy; (M.B.); (D.A.)
| | - Desiree Deandreis
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy; (V.L.); (D.D.)
| | - Demetrio Arico’
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Humanitas Oncological Centre of Catania, 95125 Catania, Italy; (M.B.); (D.A.)
| | - Massimo Ippolito
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Cannizzaro Hospital, 95126 Catania, Italy; (S.B.); (M.I.)
| | - Michele Gaeta
- Section of Radiological Sciences, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphological and Functional Imaging, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy;
| | - Pierpaolo Alongi
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Fondazione Istituto G.Giglio, 90015 Cefalù, Italy;
| | - Fabio Minutoli
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morpho-Functional Imaging, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy; (A.V.); (A.S.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (S.B.)
| | - Irene A. Burger
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, 8091 Zürich, Switzerland;
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Kantonsspital Baden, 5404 Baden, Switzerland
| | - Sergio Baldari
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morpho-Functional Imaging, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy; (A.V.); (A.S.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (S.B.)
| |
Collapse
|