1
|
Musall BC, Rauch DE, Mohamed RMM, Panthi B, Boge M, Candelaria RP, Chen H, Guirguis MS, Hunt KK, Huo L, Hwang KP, Korkut A, Litton JK, Moseley TW, Pashapoor S, Patel MM, Reed BJ, Scoggins ME, Son JB, Tripathy D, Valero V, Wei P, White JB, Whitman GJ, Xu Z, Yang WT, Yam C, Adrada BE, Ma J. Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Characterizing Changes in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer During Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2024. [PMID: 38294179 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.29267] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Revised: 01/18/2024] [Accepted: 01/18/2024] [Indexed: 02/01/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Assessment of treatment response in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) may guide individualized care for improved patient outcomes. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) measures tissue anisotropy and could be useful for characterizing changes in the tumors and adjacent fibroglandular tissue (FGT) of TNBC patients undergoing neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NAST). PURPOSE To evaluate the potential of DTI parameters for prediction of treatment response in TNBC patients undergoing NAST. STUDY TYPE Prospective. POPULATION Eighty-six women (average age: 51 ± 11 years) with biopsy-proven clinical stage I-III TNBC who underwent NAST followed by definitive surgery. 47% of patients (40/86) had pathologic complete response (pCR). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE 3.0 T/reduced field of view single-shot echo-planar DTI sequence. ASSESSMENT Three MRI scans were acquired longitudinally (pre-treatment, after 2 cycles of NAST, and after 4 cycles of NAST). Eleven histogram features were extracted from DTI parameter maps of tumors, a peritumoral region (PTR), and FGT in the ipsilateral breast. DTI parameters included apparent diffusion coefficients and relative diffusion anisotropies. pCR status was determined at surgery. STATISTICAL TESTS Longitudinal changes of DTI features were tested for discrimination of pCR using Mann-Whitney U test and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS 47% of patients (40/86) had pCR. DTI parameters assessed after 2 and 4 cycles of NAST were significantly different between pCR and non-pCR patients when compared between tumors, PTRs, and FGTs. The median surface/average anisotropy of the PTR, measured after 2 and 4 cycles of NAST, increased in pCR patients and decreased in non-pCR patients (AUC: 0.78; 0.027 ± 0.043 vs. -0.017 ± 0.042 mm2 /s). DATA CONCLUSION Quantitative DTI features from breast tumors and the peritumoral tissue may be useful for predicting the response to NAST in TNBC. EVIDENCE LEVEL 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 4.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin C Musall
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David E Rauch
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Rania M M Mohamed
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Bikash Panthi
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Medine Boge
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Rosalind P Candelaria
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Huiqin Chen
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Mary S Guirguis
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Kelly K Hunt
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Lei Huo
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ken-Pin Hwang
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Anil Korkut
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jennifer K Litton
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Tanya W Moseley
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Sanaz Pashapoor
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Miral M Patel
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Brandy J Reed
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Marion E Scoggins
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Debu Tripathy
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Vicente Valero
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Peng Wei
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jason B White
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Gary J Whitman
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Zhan Xu
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Wei T Yang
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Clinton Yam
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Beatriz E Adrada
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Panthi B, Mohamed RM, Adrada BE, Boge M, Candelaria RP, Chen H, Hunt KK, Huo L, Hwang KP, Korkut A, Lane DL, Le-Petross HC, Leung JWT, Litton JK, Pashapoor S, Perez F, Son JB, Sun J, Thompson A, Tripathy D, Valero V, Wei P, White J, Xu Z, Yang W, Zhou Z, Yam C, Rauch GM, Ma J. Longitudinal dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI radiomic models for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1264259. [PMID: 37941561 PMCID: PMC10628525 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1264259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2023] [Accepted: 10/09/2023] [Indexed: 11/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Early prediction of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) response for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients could help oncologists select individualized treatment and avoid toxic effects associated with ineffective therapy in patients unlikely to achieve pathologic complete response (pCR). The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of radiomic features of the peritumoral and tumoral regions from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) acquired at different time points of NAST for early treatment response prediction in TNBC. This study included 163 Stage I-III patients with TNBC undergoing NAST as part of a prospective clinical trial (NCT02276443). Peritumoral and tumoral regions of interest were segmented on DCE images at baseline (BL) and after two (C2) and four (C4) cycles of NAST. Ten first-order (FO) radiomic features and 300 gray-level-co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) features were calculated. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to determine the most predictive features. Multivariate logistic regression models were used for performance assessment. Pearson correlation was used to assess intrareader and interreader variability. Seventy-eight patients (48%) had pCR (52 training, 26 testing), and 85 (52%) had non-pCR (57 training, 28 testing). Forty-six radiomic features had AUC at least 0.70, and 13 multivariate models had AUC at least 0.75 for training and testing sets. The Pearson correlation showed significant correlation between readers. In conclusion, Radiomic features from DCE-MRI are useful for differentiating pCR and non-pCR. Similarly, predictive radiomic models based on these features can improve early noninvasive treatment response prediction in TNBC patients undergoing NAST.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bikash Panthi
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Rania M. Mohamed
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Beatriz E. Adrada
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Medine Boge
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
- Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye
| | - Rosalind P. Candelaria
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Huiqin Chen
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Kelly K. Hunt
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Lei Huo
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Ken-Pin Hwang
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Anil Korkut
- Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Deanna L. Lane
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Huong C. Le-Petross
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Jessica W. T. Leung
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Jennifer K. Litton
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Sanaz Pashapoor
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Frances Perez
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Jia Sun
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Alastair Thompson
- Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Debu Tripathy
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Vicente Valero
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Peng Wei
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Jason White
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Zhan Xu
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Wei Yang
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Zijian Zhou
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Clinton Yam
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Gaiane M. Rauch
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
- Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Xu Z, Rauch DE, Mohamed RM, Pashapoor S, Zhou Z, Panthi B, Son JB, Hwang KP, Musall BC, Adrada BE, Candelaria RP, Leung JWT, Le-Petross HTC, Lane DL, Perez F, White J, Clayborn A, Reed B, Chen H, Sun J, Wei P, Thompson A, Korkut A, Huo L, Hunt KK, Litton JK, Valero V, Tripathy D, Yang W, Yam C, Ma J. Deep Learning for Fully Automatic Tumor Segmentation on Serially Acquired Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Images of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4829. [PMID: 37835523 PMCID: PMC10571741 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15194829] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Revised: 09/10/2023] [Accepted: 09/22/2023] [Indexed: 10/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Accurate tumor segmentation is required for quantitative image analyses, which are increasingly used for evaluation of tumors. We developed a fully automated and high-performance segmentation model of triple-negative breast cancer using a self-configurable deep learning framework and a large set of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI images acquired serially over the patients' treatment course. Among all models, the top-performing one that was trained with the images across different time points of a treatment course yielded a Dice similarity coefficient of 93% and a sensitivity of 96% on baseline images. The top-performing model also produced accurate tumor size measurements, which is valuable for practical clinical applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhan Xu
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (Z.X.)
| | - David E. Rauch
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (Z.X.)
| | - Rania M. Mohamed
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Sanaz Pashapoor
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Zijian Zhou
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (Z.X.)
| | - Bikash Panthi
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (Z.X.)
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (Z.X.)
| | - Ken-Pin Hwang
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (Z.X.)
| | - Benjamin C. Musall
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (Z.X.)
| | - Beatriz E. Adrada
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Rosalind P. Candelaria
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Jessica W. T. Leung
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Huong T. C. Le-Petross
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Deanna L. Lane
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Frances Perez
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Jason White
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Alyson Clayborn
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Brandy Reed
- Department of Clinical Research Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Huiqin Chen
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Jia Sun
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Peng Wei
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Alastair Thompson
- Section of Breast Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Anil Korkut
- Department of Bioinformatics & Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Lei Huo
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Kelly K. Hunt
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Jennifer K. Litton
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Vicente Valero
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Debu Tripathy
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Wei Yang
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Clinton Yam
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (Z.X.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Saleh M, Virarkar M, Javadi S, Mathew M, Vulasala SSR, Son JB, Sun J, Bayram E, Wang X, Ma J, Szklaruk J, Bhosale P. A Feasibility Study on Deep Learning Reconstruction to Improve Image Quality With PROPELLER Acquisition in the Setting of T2-Weighted Gynecologic Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2023; 47:721-728. [PMID: 37707401 DOI: 10.1097/rct.0000000000001491] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Evaluate deep learning (DL) to improve the image quality of the PROPELLER (Periodically Rotated Overlapping Parallel Lines with Enhanced Reconstruction technique) for 3 T magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis. METHODS Three radiologists prospectively and independently compared non-DL and DL PROPELLER sequences from 20 patients with a history of gynecologic malignancy. Sequences with different noise reduction factors (DL 25%, DL 50%, and DL 75%) were blindly reviewed and scored based on artifacts, noise, relative sharpness, and overall image quality. The generalized estimating equation method was used to assess the effect of methods on the Likert scales. Quantitatively, the contrast-to-noise ratio and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the iliac muscle were calculated, and pairwise comparisons were performed based on a linear mixed model. P values were adjusted using the Dunnett method. Interobserver agreement was assessed using the κ statistic. P value was considered statistically significant at less than 0.05. RESULTS Qualitatively, DL 50 and DL 75 were ranked as the best sequences in 86% of cases. Images generated by the DL method were significantly better than non-DL images ( P < 0.0001). Iliacus muscle SNR on DL 50 and DL 75 was significantly better than non-DL images ( P < 0.0001). There was no difference in contrast-to-noise ratio between the DL and non-DL techniques in the iliac muscle. There was a high percent agreement (97.1%) in terms of DL sequences' superior image quality (97.1%) and sharpness (100%) relative to non-DL images. CONCLUSION The utilization of DL reconstruction improves the image quality of PROPELLER sequences with improved SNR quantitatively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammed Saleh
- From the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX
| | - Mayur Virarkar
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Sanaz Javadi
- Department of Abdominal Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Manoj Mathew
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
| | | | | | - Jia Sun
- Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Ersin Bayram
- Global MR Applications and Workflow, GE Healthcare, Houston, TX
| | - Xinzeng Wang
- Global MR Applications and Workflow, GE Healthcare, Houston, TX
| | | | - Janio Szklaruk
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Priya Bhosale
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zhou Z, Adrada BE, Candelaria RP, Elshafeey NA, Boge M, Mohamed RM, Pashapoor S, Sun J, Xu Z, Panthi B, Son JB, Guirguis MS, Patel MM, Whitman GJ, Moseley TW, Scoggins ME, White JB, Litton JK, Valero V, Hunt KK, Tripathy D, Yang W, Wei P, Yam C, Pagel MD, Rauch GM, Ma J. Predicting pathological complete response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy for triple-negative breast cancers using deep learning on multiparametric MRIs. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2023; 2023:1-4. [PMID: 38083160 DOI: 10.1109/embc40787.2023.10340987] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2023]
Abstract
We trained and validated a deep learning model that can predict the treatment response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) for patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the pre-treatment (baseline) and after four cycles (C4) of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide treatment were used as inputs to the model for prediction of pathologic complete response (pCR). Based on the standard pCR definition that includes disease status in either breast or axilla, the model achieved areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of 0.96 ± 0.05, 0.78 ± 0.09, 0.88 ± 0.02, and 0.76 ± 0.03, for the training, validation, testing, and prospective testing groups, respectively. For the pCR status of breast only, the retrained model achieved prediction AUCs of 0.97 ± 0.04, 0.82 ± 0.10, 0.86 ± 0.03, and 0.83 ± 0.02, for the training, validation, testing, and prospective testing groups, respectively. Thus, the developed deep learning model is highly promising for predicting the treatment response to NAST of TNBC.Clinical Relevance- Deep learning based on serial and multiparametric MRIs can potentially distinguish TNBC patients with pCR from non-pCR at the early stage of neoadjuvant systemic therapy, potentially enabling more personalized treatment of TNBC patients.
Collapse
|
6
|
Hwang KP, Elshafeey NA, Kotrotsou A, Chen H, Son JB, Boge M, Mohamed RM, Abdelhafez AH, Adrada BE, Panthi B, Sun J, Musall BC, Zhang S, Candelaria RP, White JB, Ravenberg EE, Tripathy D, Yam C, Litton JK, Huo L, Thompson AM, Wei P, Yang WT, Pagel MD, Ma J, Rauch GM. A Radiomics Model Based on Synthetic MRI Acquisition for Predicting Neoadjuvant Systemic Treatment Response in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Radiol Imaging Cancer 2023; 5:e230009. [PMID: 37505106 PMCID: PMC10413296 DOI: 10.1148/rycan.230009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2023] [Revised: 04/18/2023] [Accepted: 06/03/2023] [Indexed: 07/29/2023]
Abstract
Purpose To determine if a radiomics model based on quantitative maps acquired with synthetic MRI (SyMRI) is useful for predicting neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) response in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods In this prospective study, 181 women diagnosed with stage I-III TNBC were scanned with a SyMRI sequence at baseline and at midtreatment (after four cycles of NAST), producing T1, T2, and proton density (PD) maps. Histopathologic analysis at surgery was used to determine pathologic complete response (pCR) or non-pCR status. From three-dimensional tumor contours drawn on the three maps, 310 histogram and textural features were extracted, resulting in 930 features per scan. Radiomic features were compared between pCR and non-pCR groups by using Wilcoxon rank sum test. To build a multivariable predictive model, logistic regression with elastic net regularization and cross-validation was performed for texture feature selection using 119 participants (median age, 52 years [range, 26-77 years]). An independent testing cohort of 62 participants (median age, 48 years [range, 23-74 years]) was used to evaluate and compare the models by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results Univariable analysis identified 15 T1, 10 T2, and 12 PD radiomic features at midtreatment that predicted pCR with an AUC greater than 0.70 in both the training and testing cohorts. Multivariable radiomics models of maps acquired at midtreatment demonstrated superior performance over those acquired at baseline, achieving AUCs as high as 0.78 and 0.72 in the training and testing cohorts, respectively. Conclusion SyMRI-based radiomic features acquired at midtreatment are potentially useful for identifying early NAST responders in TNBC. Keywords: MR Imaging, Breast, Outcomes Analysis ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT02276443 Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2023 See also the commentary by Houser and Rapelyea in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ken-Pin Hwang
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Nabil A. Elshafeey
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Aikaterini Kotrotsou
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Huiqin Chen
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Jong Bum Son
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Medine Boge
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Rania M. Mohamed
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Abeer H. Abdelhafez
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Beatriz E. Adrada
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Bikash Panthi
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Jia Sun
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Benjamin C. Musall
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Shu Zhang
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Rosalind P. Candelaria
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Jason B. White
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Elizabeth E. Ravenberg
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Debu Tripathy
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Clinton Yam
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Jennifer K. Litton
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Lei Huo
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Alastair M. Thompson
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Peng Wei
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Wei T. Yang
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Mark D. Pagel
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Jingfei Ma
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| | - Gaiane M. Rauch
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (K.P.H., A.K., J.B.S., B.P.,
B.C.M., J.M.), Breast Imaging (N.A.E., M.B., R.M.M., A.H.A., B.E.A., R.P.C.,
W.T.Y., G.M.R.), Biostatistics (H.C., J.S., P.W.), Cancer Systems Imaging (S.Z.,
M.D.P.), Moon Shots Operations (J.B.W.), Breast Medical Oncology (E.E.R., D.T.,
C.Y.), Clinical Research (J.K.L.), Pathology (L.H.), and Abdominal Imaging
(G.M.R.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,
Houston, TX 77030; and Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston, Tex (A.M.T.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Stowers CE, Wu C, Kumar S, Lima EA, Zu X, Yam C, Son JB, Ma J, Tamir JI, Rauch GM, Yankeelov TE. Abstract 845: Developing MRI-based digital-twins via mathematical modeling and deep learning to predict the response of triple-negative breast cancer to neoadjuvant therapy. Cancer Res 2023. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-845] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/07/2023]
Abstract
Abstract
More than 50% of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients do not respond well to the standard-of-care neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). Therefore, methods capable of predicting treatment response will be highly useful to optimize intervention and outcomes for TNBC patients. To address this problem, we aim to integrate quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with biology-based mathematical modeling and deep learning to make patient-specific predictions of TNBC response to NAT using only pretreatment data. TNBC patients (n = 150) enrolled in the ARTEMIS trial (NCT02276443) received doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (A/C) followed by paclitaxel. MRI exams were acquired for each patient at the following timepoints: (1) before initiation of NAT, (2) after two A/C cycles, (3) after four A/C cycles, and (4) at the conclusion of NAT. Using patient-specific MRI data from the first two exams, we calibrated a biology-based mathematical model to characterize migration, proliferation, and treatment-induced death of tumor cells. We then used this model as a digital twin to predict spatiotemporal tumor response. While effective, this approach requires the patient to have completed at least part of their NAT regime before we are able to predict therapeutic response. To relax this requirement, we have developed an approach that combines deep learning and biology-based mathematical modeling to predict the response of TNBC to NAT before treatment initiation. Specifically, we integrated a U-Net-based convolutional neural network with our mathematical model to regress between pre-treatment data and the model parameters obtained from a training set. Using parameters from learning a network with a subset of 68 patients, our mathematical model yielded concordance correlation coefficients between the predicted and measured patient-specific changes in tumor cellularity and volume at the third imaging point of 0.95 and 0.92, respectively. Spatially, we obtain the median difference between predicted and measured percent change in cellularity from visit one to visit three for each patient, giving a mean (95% confidence interval) of -6.51% (-7.13%, -5.90%) across all patients. These encouraging results may be further improved using methods such as expanding to a spatially-resolved proliferation rate, including genetic and/or histological data, and extending the deep learning framework to the end of the treatment course to predict pathological response. This approach allows us to obtain patient-specific predictions of response before NAT commences, thereby providing the opportunity to optimize interventions and patient outcomes.
Citation Format: Casey E. Stowers, Chengyue Wu, Sidharth Kumar, Ernesto A.B.F. Lima, Xhan Zu, Clinton Yam, Jong Bum Son, Jingfei Ma, Jonathan I. Tamir, Gaiane M. Rauch, Thomas E. Yankeelov. Developing MRI-based digital-twins via mathematical modeling and deep learning to predict the response of triple-negative breast cancer to neoadjuvant therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 845.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Xhan Zu
- 2University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Clinton Yam
- 2University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jong Bum Son
- 2University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jingfei Ma
- 2University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wu C, Stowers CE, Xu Z, Lima EABF, Yam C, Son JB, Ma J, Rauch GM, Yankeelov TE. Abstract 5569: Quantification of tumor-associated vasculature as an imaging biomarker for monitoring the response of triple-negative breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer Res 2023. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-5569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/07/2023]
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: Patients with locally advanced, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) typically receive neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST). However, the response of TNBC to NAST is varied and a prognostic marker is still lacking. Since angiogenesis plays an important role in cancer progression, the quantification of changes in the tumor vasculature during treatment has the potential to provide useful information for characterizing the treatment response. We have recently developed a method to quantify changes in tumor-associated vasculature through a novel analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). In this study, we investigated its ability to monitor the response of TNBC to NAST.
Methods: Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI was acquired in TNBC patients (N = 50; 25 pathological complete response (pCR), 25 non-pCR) before, after 2 and 4 cycles of Adriamycin/Cyclophosphamide (A/C), as part of the ARTEMIS trial (NCT02276433). Using DCE-MRI, we identified the tumor-associated vessels via a breast vasculature analysis. Specifically, the difference between pre- and post-contrast DCE-MRI images was enhanced by a histogram-based intensity transfer function. The 3D vasculature in the breast was then segmented by applying a Hessian filter. Given the vasculature segmented by the algorithms and the tumor masks segmented by radiologists, a lowest-cost tracking algorithm was used to automatically detect the vessels that are most likely to contact the tumor. These vessels are defined as tumor-associated vessels (TAV). The number of TAVs per patient was tabulated and the Wilcoxon rank sum test compared the TAV values before (V1), after 2 cycles (V2), and after 4 cycles of NAST (V3). Additionally, we compared the percent change of TAV from V1 to V3 between the pCR patients and non-pCR patients. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.
Results: A significant decrease in the number of TAVs was observed during the NAST. In particular, the number of TAVs has a median (interquartile range) of 15 (7 - 24), 7 (3 - 14), and 2 (0 - 8) at V1, V2, V3, respectively, which are (pair-wise) significantly different (P < 0.01). Moreover, pCR patients showed a significantly greater decrease in the number of TAVs as compared to non-pCR patients. The percent changes in the number of TAVs from V1 to V3 have a median (range) of -88.89% (-100.00% - -60.00%) and -66.67% (-87.85% - -40.88%) in the pCR and non-pCR patients, respectively (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: These preliminary results demonstrate that tumor-associated vasculature may be a valuable imaging biomarker for monitoring the response of TNBC to NAST. Ongoing efforts include additional investigation of the TAVs beyond their number, as well as applying the analysis to more patients.
Citation Format: Chengyue Wu, Casey E. Stowers, Zhan Xu, Ernesto A. B. F. Lima, Clinton Yam, Jong Bum Son, Jingfei Ma, Gaiane M. Rauch, Thomas E. Yankeelov. Quantification of tumor-associated vasculature as an imaging biomarker for monitoring the response of triple-negative breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 5569.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Zhan Xu
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Clinton Yam
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jong Bum Son
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jingfei Ma
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gaiane M. Rauch
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Mohamed RM, Panthi B, Adrada B, Candelaria R, Guirguis MS, Yang W, Boge M, Patel M, Elshafeey N, Pashapoor S, Zhou Z, Son JB, Hwang KP, Le-Petross HTC, Leung J, Scoggins ME, Whitman GJ, Xu Z, Lane DL, Moseley T, Perez F, White J, Ravenberg E, Clayborn A, Pagel M, Chen H, Sun J, Wei P, Thompson AM, Moulder S, Korkut A, Huo L, Hunt KK, Litton JK, Valero V, Tripathy D, Yam C, Ma J, Rauch G. Abstract P6-01-06: Multi-Parametric MRI-Based Radiomics Models from Tumor and Peritumoral Regions as Potential Predictors of Treatment Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Triple Negative Breast Cancer Patients. Cancer Res 2023. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs22-p6-01-06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/06/2023]
Abstract
Abstract
PURPOSE Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive and heterogeneous subtype of breast cancer. Pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) predicts better survival. Early prediction of the treatment response can potentially triage non-responding patients to alternative protocol treatments, spare them of the unneeded toxicity, and improve pCR. We evaluated the ability of radiomic textural analysis of intratumoral and peritumoral regions on the dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) MRI images obtained early during NAST to predict pCR. MATERIALS AND METHODS This IRB-approved prospective study (NCT02276443) included 182 patients with biopsy proven stage I-III TNBC who had multiparametric MRIs at baseline (BL), post 2 cycles (C2), and post 4 cycles (C4) of NAST before surgery. Tumors and peritumoral regions of 5 mm and 10 mm in thickness were segmented on the 2.5 minutes DCE subtraction images and on the b=800 DWI images. Ten histogram-based first order texture features including mean, minimum, maximum, standard deviation, kurtosis, skewness, 1st, 5th, 95th, and 99th percentile, and 300 radiomic Grey Level Co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) features along with their absolute and relative differences between the 3 imaging time points were extracted from the tumors and from the peritumoral regions with an in-house Matlab toolbox. Treatment response at surgery (pCR vs non-pCR) was documented. The samples were divided into training and testing datasets by a 2:1 ratio. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC ROC) was calculated for univariate analysis in predicting pCR. Logistic regression with elastic net regularization was performed for texture feature selection. Parameter optimization was performed by using 5-fold cross-validation based on mean cross-validated AUC in the training set. RESULTS Of 182 TNBC patients, 88 (48%) had pCR and 94 (52%) did not achieve pCR. Eight multivariate models combining radiomic features from both DCE and DWI tumoral and peritumoral regions had AUC > 0.8 (0.807-0.831) with p-value < 0.001 in both training and testing sets. The highest AUC=0.831 was obtained from a model consisting of 15 radiomic features: tumor DWI (5 GLCM features) at C2, peritumoral region on DCE (skewness) at C2, tumor DCE (1st, 5th percentile) at C4, tumor DWI (3 GLCM features) at C4, peritumoral region DWI (1 GLCM feature) at C4, and the relative difference between C4/C2 on DCE (5th, 95th percentile and mean). CONCLUSION Multi-parametric MRI-based radiomics models from the tumor and the peritumoral regions showed high accuracy as potential early predictors of NAST response in TNBC patients.
Citation Format: Rania M. Mohamed, Bikash Panthi, Beatriz Adrada, Rosalind Candelaria, Mary S. Guirguis, Wei Yang, Medine Boge, Miral Patel, Nabil Elshafeey, Sanaz Pashapoor, Zijian Zhou, Jong Bum Son, Ken-Pin Hwang, H. T. Carisa Le-Petross, Jessica Leung, Marion E. Scoggins, Gary J. Whitman, Zhan Xu, Deanna L. Lane, Tanya Moseley, Frances Perez, Jason White, Elizabeth Ravenberg, Alyson Clayborn, Mark Pagel, Huiqin Chen, Jia Sun, Peng Wei, Alastair M. Thompson, Stacy Moulder, Anil Korkut, Lei Huo, Kelly K. Hunt, Jennifer K. Litton, Vicente Valero, Debu Tripathy, Clinton Yam, Jingfei Ma, Gaiane Rauch. Multi-Parametric MRI-Based Radiomics Models from Tumor and Peritumoral Regions as Potential Predictors of Treatment Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Triple Negative Breast Cancer Patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-01-06.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rania M. Mohamed
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Beatriz Adrada
- 3University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | | | - Wei Yang
- 6Department of Breast Imaging - University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Medine Boge
- 7The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Miral Patel
- 8University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | - Sanaz Pashapoor
- 10University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Zijian Zhou
- 11The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Gary J. Whitman
- 17The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Zhan Xu
- 18MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas
| | | | | | | | - Jason White
- 22The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | | | - Mark Pagel
- 25The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Huiqin Chen
- 26The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Jia Sun
- 27The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Peng Wei
- 28The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | | | - Anil Korkut
- 31The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Lei Huo
- 32The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Kelly K. Hunt
- 33The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas
| | | | - Vicente Valero
- 35Department of Breast Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center,, Houston
| | - Debu Tripathy
- 36The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Clinton Yam
- 37Breast Medical Oncology Department, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Jingfei Ma
- 38University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Gaiane Rauch
- 39The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Panthi B, Mohamed RM, Adrada B, Candelaria R, Guirguis MS, Yang W, Boge M, Patel M, Elshafeey N, Pashapoor S, Zhou Z, Son JB, Hwang KP, Le-Petross HTC, Leung J, Scoggins ME, Whitman GJ, Xu Z, Lane DL, Moseley T, Perez F, White J, Ravenberg E, Clayborn A, Pagel M, Chen H, Sun J, Wei P, Thompson AM, Moulder S, Korkut A, Huo L, Hunt KK, Litton JK, Valero V, Tripathy D, Yam C, Ma J, Rauch G. Abstract P6-01-34: Longitudinal DCE-MRI Radiomic Models for Early Prediction of Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy (NAST) in Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) Patients. Cancer Res 2023. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs22-p6-01-34] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/06/2023]
Abstract
Abstract
Background and Purpose Early prediction of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) response in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients could potentially aid in the selection of alternative therapies and avoid unnecessary toxicity in patients unlikely to achieve pathologic complete response (pCR) with NAST. In this study, we investigated the radiomic features of the peritumoral and the tumoral regions from dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI acquired at different time points of NAST for early treatment response prediction in TNBC. Methods and Materials This study included 182 biopsy-confirmed stage I-III TNBC patients enrolled in an IRB approved prospective clinical trial (NCT02276433). All patients underwent DCE-MRI on a GE 3T MRI scanner at baseline (BL), after two (C2) and four (C4) cycles of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide based chemotherapy and before surgery. The peritumoral and the tumoral regions were segmented manually by two fellowship-trained radiologists using early phase (2.5 min) DCE-MRI subtraction images. Ten first order radiomic features, 300 grey-level-co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) features along with their absolute and relative differences (C4/BL, C2/BL, C4/C2) between the 3 imaging time points were extracted from the peritumoral and the tumoral regions. Patients were randomly divided into training and testing sets in a 2:1 ratio. For univariate analysis, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC ROC) was measured to determine the features most predictive of pCR/non-pCR. Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to test the statistical significance of predictive performance. In multivariate analysis, radiomic models were established using logistic regression with elastic net regularization followed by 5-fold cross validation for performance assessment. Results Eighty-eight (48%) patients had pCR (59 training, 29 testing) and 94 (52%) patients had non-pCR (63 training, 31 testing). Twenty-five radiomic features (4 from peritumoral C4, 5 from tumoral C4, 4 from peritumoral C4/BL, 6 from tumoral C4/BL, 2 from peritumoral C4/C2 and 4 from tumoral C4/C2) were statistically significant with AUC ≥ 0.75 in both the training and the testing sets at the univariate analysis. The significant features at C4 had AUCs of 0.75-0.79 for the training set and 0.76-0.81 for the testing set. Changes measured between C4 and BL or C2 showed AUC of 0.76-0.84 in the training and 0.75-0.81 in the testing datasets. Eleven multivariate regression models comprised of radiomic features at BL, C2, C4 and their changes (C4/BL, C4/C2 and C2/BL) showed an AUC of 0.80-0.84 for cross validation and an AUC of 0.80-0.82 for independent testing. Conclusions Radiomic models using longitudinal DCE MRI parameters of peritumoral and tumoral regions during NAST have the potential to predict pCR in TNBC patients undergoing NAST.
Citation Format: Bikash Panthi, Rania M. Mohamed, Beatriz Adrada, Rosalind Candelaria, Mary S. Guirguis, Wei Yang, Medine Boge, Miral Patel, Nabil Elshafeey, Sanaz Pashapoor, Zijian Zhou, Jong Bum Son, Ken-Pin Hwang, H. T. Carisa Le-Petross, Jessica Leung, Marion E. Scoggins, Gary J. Whitman, Zhan Xu, Deanna L. Lane, Tanya Moseley, Frances Perez, Jason White, Elizabeth Ravenberg, Alyson Clayborn, Mark Pagel, Huiqin Chen, Jia Sun, Peng Wei, Alastair M. Thompson, Stacy Moulder, Anil Korkut, Lei Huo, Kelly K. Hunt, Jennifer K. Litton, Vicente Valero, Debu Tripathy, Clinton Yam, Jingfei Ma, Gaiane Rauch. Longitudinal DCE-MRI Radiomic Models for Early Prediction of Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy (NAST) in Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) Patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-01-34.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Rania M. Mohamed
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Beatriz Adrada
- 3University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | | | - Wei Yang
- 6Department of Breast Imaging - University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Medine Boge
- 7The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Miral Patel
- 8University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | - Sanaz Pashapoor
- 10University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Zijian Zhou
- 11The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Gary J. Whitman
- 17The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Zhan Xu
- 18MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas
| | | | | | | | - Jason White
- 22The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | | | - Mark Pagel
- 25The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Huiqin Chen
- 26The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Jia Sun
- 27The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Peng Wei
- 28The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | | | - Anil Korkut
- 31The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Lei Huo
- 32The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Kelly K. Hunt
- 33The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas
| | | | - Vicente Valero
- 35Department of Breast Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center,, Houston, Texas
| | - Debu Tripathy
- 36The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Clinton Yam
- 37Breast Medical Oncology Department, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Jingfei Ma
- 38University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Gaiane Rauch
- 39The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Guirguis MS, Adrada B, Patel M, Perez F, Candelaria R, Yang W, Sun J, Mohamed RM, Boge M, Le-Petross HTC, Leung J, Whitman GJ, Lane DL, Scoggins ME, Moseley T, Musall B, White J, Pashapoor S, Wei P, Son JB, Hwang KP, Panthi B, Pagel M, Huo L, Hunt KK, Ravenberg E, Thompson AM, Litton JK, Valero V, Tripathy D, Moulder S, Yam C, Ma J, Rauch G. Abstract P1-05-15: DCE-MRI for early prediction of excellent response versus chemoresistance in triple negative breast cancer. Cancer Res 2023. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs22-p1-05-15] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/06/2023]
Abstract
Abstract
PURPOSE Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous disease with variable response to neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). Pathologic complete response (pCR) has become a prognostic marker for overall and disease-free survival. The aim of this study was to determine if dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI after 2 and/or 4 cycles of NAT can identify patients with a high likelihood of achieving pCR, triaging them to standard of care (SOC), or, when appropriate, to de-escalation trials. Conversely, we aimed to identify chemoresistant tumors that are unlikely to achieve pCR and may benefit from escalated targeted trials.
METHOD AND MATERIALS 309 patients with stage I-III TNBC underwent DCE-MRI (temporal resolution: 9-12 sec) at baseline (BL), 2 cycles (C2), and 4 cycles (C4) of SOC doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) NAT as part of a prospective IRB-approved study (NCT02276443). Tumor volumes of the index lesion were calculated using 3 axis measurements during the early phase of the DCE-MRI (60s). Percent tumor volume reduction (TVR) between BL, C2, and C4 was calculated. Patients were randomly assigned to a training or a validation cohort in a 1:1 ratio. pCR was assessed at surgery after completion of SOC NAT. Correlation between pCR and TVR was evaluated using ROC analysis.
RESULTS Of 309 TNBC patients, 136 (44%) achieved pCR. Following 2 cycles of NAT, TVR >80% was predictive of pCR (chemosensitivity), while TVR ≤ 55% was predictive of non-pCR (chemoresistance) with PPV 80%, NPV 89%, AUC 0.811 (0.73~0.893, p< 0.0001) in the training cohort, and PPV 82%, NPV 85%, AUC 0.815 (CI:0.736~0.894, p< 0.0001) in the validation cohort. Following 4 cycles of NAT, TVR >90% was predictive of pCR, while TVR ≤80% was predictive of non-pCR with PPV 80%, NPV 84%, AUC 0.827 (0.756~0.898, p< 0.0001) in the training cohort and with PPV 73%, NPV 82%, AUC 0.785 (CI:0.709~0.862, p< 0.001) in the validation cohort. Using this model, the pCR status was correctly classified in 50% of TNBC patients using C2 DCE-MRI in the training cohort, and 54% in the validation cohort. Only 8% were misclassified in the training cohort, and 10% in the validation cohort. Using C4 DCE-MRI, the pCR status of 61% and 57% of TNBC was correctly classified in the validation and the testing cohorts, respectively. 12% were misclassified in the validation cohort, and 21% in the testing cohort.
CONCLUSION DCE-MRI after 2 and 4 cycles of AC-based NAT correctly predicted the pCR status of 54% and 57% of TNBC patients, respectively, as either excellent responders or nonresponders with high AUC 0.811 and 0.827. This may allow patients to be triaged to SOC NAT with option of de-escalation or early targeted therapies for non-responders.
Citation Format: Mary S. Guirguis, Beatriz Adrada, Miral Patel, Frances Perez, Rosalind Candelaria, Wei Yang, Jia Sun, Rania M. Mohamed, Medine Boge, H. T. Carisa Le-Petross, Jessica Leung, Gary J. Whitman, Deanna L. Lane, Marion E. Scoggins, Tanya Moseley, Benjamin Musall, Jason White, Sanaz Pashapoor, Peng Wei, Jong Bum Son, Ken-Pin Hwang, Bikash Panthi, Mark Pagel, Lei Huo, Kelly K. Hunt, Elizabeth Ravenberg, Alastair M. Thompson, Jennifer K. Litton, Vicente Valero, Debu Tripathy, Stacy Moulder, Clinton Yam, Jingfei Ma, Gaiane Rauch. DCE-MRI for early prediction of excellent response versus chemoresistance in triple negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-05-15.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Beatriz Adrada
- 2University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Miral Patel
- 3University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | | | - Wei Yang
- 6Department of Breast Imaging - University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jia Sun
- 7The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Rania M. Mohamed
- 8The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Medine Boge
- 9The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | | | - Gary J. Whitman
- 12The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | | | | | | | - Jason White
- 17The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center17
| | - Sanaz Pashapoor
- 18University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Peng Wei
- 19The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Jong Bum Son
- 20University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center20
| | | | - Bikash Panthi
- 22The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer center22
| | - Mark Pagel
- 23The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Lei Huo
- 24The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center24
| | - Kelly K. Hunt
- 25The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas
| | | | | | | | - Vicente Valero
- 29Department of Breast Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center,, Houston, Texas
| | - Debu Tripathy
- 30The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Clinton Yam
- 32Breast Medical Oncology Department, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Jingfei Ma
- 33University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Gaiane Rauch
- 34The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Musall BC, Adrada BE, Candelaria RP, Mohamed RMM, Abdelhafez AH, Son JB, Sun J, Santiago L, Whitman GJ, Moseley TW, Scoggins ME, Mahmoud HS, White JB, Hwang KP, Elshafeey NA, Boge M, Zhang S, Litton JK, Valero V, Tripathy D, Thompson AM, Yam C, Wei P, Moulder SL, Pagel MD, Yang WT, Ma J, Rauch GM. Quantitative Apparent Diffusion Coefficients From Peritumoral Regions as Early Predictors of Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2022; 56:1901-1909. [PMID: 35499264 PMCID: PMC9626398 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28219] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2022] [Revised: 04/20/2022] [Accepted: 04/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a strong predictor of patient survival. Edema in the peritumoral region (PTR) has been reported to be a negative prognostic factor in TNBC. PURPOSE To determine whether quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) features from PTRs on reduced field-of-view (rFOV) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) predict the response to NAST in TNBC. STUDY TYPE Prospective. POPULATION/SUBJECTS A total of 108 patients with biopsy-proven TNBC who underwent NAST and definitive surgery during 2015-2020. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE A 3.0 T/rFOV single-shot diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging sequence (DWI). ASSESSMENT Three scans were acquired longitudinally (pretreatment, after two cycles of NAST, and after four cycles of NAST). For each scan, 11 ADC histogram features (minimum, maximum, mean, median, standard deviation, kurtosis, skewness and 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles) were extracted from tumors and from PTRs of 5 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm, and 20 mm in thickness with inclusion and exclusion of fat-dominant pixels. STATISTICAL TESTS ADC features were tested for prediction of pCR, both individually using Mann-Whitney U test and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and in combination in multivariable models with k-fold cross-validation. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS Fifty-one patients (47%) had pCR. Maximum ADC from PTR, measured after two and four cycles of NAST, was significantly higher in pCR patients (2.8 ± 0.69 vs 3.5 ± 0.94 mm2 /sec). The top-performing feature for prediction of pCR was the maximum ADC from the 5-mm fat-inclusive PTR after cycle 4 of NAST (AUC: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.64, 0.84). Multivariable models of ADC features performed similarly for fat-inclusive and fat-exclusive PTRs, with AUCs ranging from 0.68 to 0.72 for the cycle 2 and cycle 4 scans. DATA CONCLUSION Quantitative ADC features from PTRs may serve as early predictors of the response to NAST in TNBC. EVIDENCE LEVEL 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 4.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin C Musall
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Beatriz E Adrada
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Rosalind P Candelaria
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Rania M M Mohamed
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Abeer H Abdelhafez
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jia Sun
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Lumarie Santiago
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Gary J Whitman
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Tanya W Moseley
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Marion E Scoggins
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Hagar S Mahmoud
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jason B White
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ken-Pin Hwang
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Nabil A Elshafeey
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Medine Boge
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Shu Zhang
- Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jennifer K Litton
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Vicente Valero
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Debu Tripathy
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Alastair M Thompson
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Clinton Yam
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Peng Wei
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Stacy L Moulder
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Mark D Pagel
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
- Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Wei T Yang
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Gaiane M Rauch
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
- Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Wu C, Jarrett AM, Zhou Z, Elshafeey N, Adrada BE, Candelaria RP, Mohamed RMM, Boge M, Huo L, White JB, Tripathy D, Valero V, Litton JK, Yam C, Son JB, Ma J, Rauch GM, Yankeelov TE. MRI-Based Digital Models Forecast Patient-Specific Treatment Responses to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Cancer Res 2022; 82:3394-3404. [PMID: 35914239 PMCID: PMC9481712 DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-22-1329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2022] [Revised: 06/14/2022] [Accepted: 07/26/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is persistently refractory to therapy, and methods to improve targeting and evaluation of responses to therapy in this disease are needed. Here, we integrate quantitative MRI data with biologically based mathematical modeling to accurately predict the response of TNBC to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) on an individual basis. Specifically, 56 patients with TNBC enrolled in the ARTEMIS trial (NCT02276443) underwent standard-of-care doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (A/C) and then paclitaxel for NAST, where dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI were acquired before treatment and after two and four cycles of A/C. A biologically based model was established to characterize tumor cell movement, proliferation, and treatment-induced cell death. Two evaluation frameworks were investigated using: (i) images acquired before and after two cycles of A/C for calibration and predicting tumor status after A/C, and (ii) images acquired before, after two cycles, and after four cycles of A/C for calibration and predicting response following NAST. For Framework 1, the concordance correlation coefficients between the predicted and measured patient-specific, post-A/C changes in tumor cellularity and volume were 0.95 and 0.94, respectively. For Framework 2, the biologically based model achieved an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.89 (sensitivity/specificity = 0.72/0.95) for differentiating pathological complete response (pCR) from non-pCR, which is statistically superior (P &lt; 0.05) to the value of 0.78 (sensitivity/specificity = 0.72/0.79) achieved by tumor volume measured after four cycles of A/C. Overall, this model successfully captured patient-specific, spatiotemporal dynamics of TNBC response to NAST, providing highly accurate predictions of NAST response. SIGNIFICANCE Integrating MRI data with biologically based mathematical modeling successfully predicts breast cancer response to chemotherapy, suggesting digital twins could facilitate a paradigm shift from simply assessing response to predicting and optimizing therapeutic efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chengyue Wu
- Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
| | - Angela M Jarrett
- Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.,Livestrong Cancer Institutes, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
| | - Zijian Zhou
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Nabil Elshafeey
- Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Beatriz E Adrada
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Rosalind P Candelaria
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Rania M M Mohamed
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Medine Boge
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Lei Huo
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jason B White
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Debu Tripathy
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Vicente Valero
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jennifer K Litton
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Clinton Yam
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Gaiane M Rauch
- Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.,Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Thomas E Yankeelov
- Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.,Livestrong Cancer Institutes, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.,Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.,Department of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.,Department of Diagnostic Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.,Department of Oncology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Wu C, Jarrett AM, Zhou Z, Elshafeey N, Adrada BE, Candelaria RP, Mohamed R, Boge M, Huo L, White J, Tripathy D, Valero V, Litton J, Yam C, Son JB, Ma J, Rauch GM, Yankeelov TE. Abstract 2736: Forecasting treatment response to neoadjuvant therapy in triple-negative breast cancer via an image-guided digital twin. Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-2736] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: Patients with locally advanced, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) typically receive neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) to downstage the tumor and to improve the outcome of subsequent breast conservation surgery. There are currently no methods to accurately predict how a TNBC patient will respond to NAT before surgery. In this work, we applied a digital twin framework to address this unmet clinical need, by integrating quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data with mechanism-based mathematical modeling.
Methods: Multiparametric MRI was acquired in patients (N = 50) before, after 2 and 4 cycles of Adriamycin/Cyclophosphamide (A/C), and again after 12 cycles of Paclitaxel as part of the ARTEMIS (NCT02276433) trial. Within each imaging session, dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and a pre-contrast T1-map were acquired. The images were processed by a pipeline consisting of motion correction, multiparametric image alignment, inter-visit image registration to align the tumor and surrounding breast tissue, tissue segmentation, and estimation of tumor cellularity from DWI. A mechanism-based mathematical model, a reaction-diffusion equation, is used to characterize the mobility of tumor cells via diffusion damped by mechanical tissue properties, tumor proliferation via logistic growth, and treatment-induced cell death via the delivery and decay of therapies. For each patient, pre-treatment images were used for model initialization. The model calibration and prediction were implemented with two strategies: 1) using images acquired during the A/C for calibration and predicting up to the end of A/C, and 2) using images acquired during and after the A/C for calibration and predicting up to the end of NAT. For strategy 1), we evaluated the model by comparing its predicted tumor volume and total tumor cellularity to the imaging measurements at the end of A/C. For strategy 2), we evaluated the model by comparing its predicted final response to the post-surgical pathological findings.
Results: For strategy 1), our framework predicted the change of tumor volume and total tumor cellularity with Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.91 and 0.89, respectively. Regarding strategy 2), our framework achieved an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.88 for distinguishing pCR from non-pCR. As a comparison, imaging measurement of tumor volume at the end of A/C achieved an AUC of 0.79.
Conclusion: Our approach successfully captures the patient-specific dynamics of TNBC response to NAT and provides an improved prediction of final response, which demonstrates the potential of a digital twin framework to be a powerful tool for predicting response to NAT. Once validated, the method will provide a unique opportunity for optimizing treatment plans on a patient-specific basis.
Citation Format: Chengyue Wu, Angela M. Jarrett, Zijian Zhou, Nabil Elshafeey, Beatriz E. Adrada, Rosalind P. Candelaria, Rania Mohamed, Medine Boge, Lei Huo, Jason White, Debu Tripathy, Vicente Valero, Jennifer Litton, Clinton Yam, Jong Bum Son, Jingfei Ma, Gaiane M. Rauch, Thomas E. Yankeelov. Forecasting treatment response to neoadjuvant therapy in triple-negative breast cancer via an image-guided digital twin [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 2736.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chengyue Wu
- 1The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
| | | | - Zijian Zhou
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Nabil Elshafeey
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Rania Mohamed
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Medine Boge
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lei Huo
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jason White
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Debu Tripathy
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Vicente Valero
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jennifer Litton
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Clinton Yam
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jong Bum Son
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jingfei Ma
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gaiane M. Rauch
- 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Zhou Z, Elshafeey NA, Rauch DE, Adrada BE, Candelaria RP, Guirguis MS, Yang W, Boge M, Mohamed RM, Whitman GJ, Lane DL, Le-Petross HC, Leung JWT, Santiago L, Scoggins ME, Spak DA, Patel MM, Perez F, Tripathy D, Valero V, Yam C, Moulder S, White JB, Son JB, Pagel MD, Ma J. Abstract P1-08-03: Deep learning for early prediction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in triple negative breast cancers. Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-p1-08-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is becoming standard of care for presurgical treatment of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. Achievement of pathological complete response (pCR) after NACT is associated with improved outcomes. There is currently an unmet need in development of imaging and clinical tools for prediction of pCR to NACT in TNBC. We investigated use of deep learning convolution neural networks (CNNs) for early prediction of pCR in a TNBC cohort on the basis of MRI acquired before the initiation and at the midpoint, after completion of four cycles of NACT (C4). Materials and Methods: Baseline and C4 MRIs of 112 TNBC patients were collected from an ongoing prospective clinical trial (NCT02276443). Four patients were excluded because they underwent different treatment for the second regimen. Among the 108 patients, 52 patients (48%) had pCR confirmed at surgery. Positive enhancement integral (PEI) derived from the early phases of DCE MRI, and apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) derived from DWI MRI (b = 100 and 800 s/mm2), were used for our investigation. The images were aligned and the tumor regions were cropped from all images. All tumor patches were normalized between [0, 1], and were padded to form matrices of the same size of 192×192×64 for PEI, or the size of 192×192×16 for ADC. The CNN was constructed using stacked 3D convolution and MaxPooling layers. It consisted of up to four channels for the inputs (baseline and C4 PEI and ADC). Features extracted from each channel were concatenated and regressed for pCR prediction via three densely connected layers. Binary cross-entropy was used as the loss function for CNN training, and the loss was optimized using an Adam optimizer with the initial learning rate of 0.0001. Because of the currently limited sample size, four-fold cross-validation was used for CNN training and evaluation. The patients were divided into four groups, each group had 27 patients and the pCR:non-pCR ratio was controlled as 13:14. For each fold, one group was reserved as the independent testing group, and the other three groups were combined for network training and internal validation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for each fold of testing, and area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. Final performance of the CNN was determined by averaging the AUCs of the four testing folds. Additionally, to test the prediction efficacy of each input, we trained the CNN under the same settings but used PEI or ADC only as input, and the results were compared. Results: The CNN trained with PEI only achieved an average AUC of 0.65 ± 0.09. The second CNN trained with ADC only achieved an average AUC of 0.72 ± 0.07. The third CNN trained with both PEI and ADC achieved an average AUC of 0.73 ± 0.06. Conclusion and Discussion: Using baseline and mid-treatment MRIs, deep learning CNN showed promising performance to predict pCR in the early course of NACT. The prediction AUC for the independent testing groups was largely improved by using ADC to train the network, indicating that ADC can have more critical information than PEI in assisting pCR prediction during the early course of NACT. Future work includes curation of a larger patient data for network training and evaluation to improve the prediction performance and further validate generalization of the network. We will also explore more advanced network structures, through which the prediction performance can be improved.
Four-fold cross-validation AUCs of the network using different data as inputs.PEIADCPEI+ADCFold 10.570.640.66Fold 20.760.800.77Fold 30.660.700.68Fold 40.590.740.79Average0.65 ± 0.090.72 ± 0.070.73 ± 0.06
Citation Format: Zijian Zhou, Nabil A Elshafeey, David E Rauch, Beatriz E Adrada, Rosalind P Candelaria, Mary S Guirguis, Wei Yang, Medine Boge, Rania M Mohamed, Gary J Whitman, Deanna L Lane, Huong C Le-Petross, Jessica WT Leung, Lumarie Santiago, Marion E Scoggins, David A Spak, Miral M Patel, Frances Perez, Debu Tripathy, Vicente Valero, Clinton Yam, Stacy Moulder, Jason B White, Jong Bum Son, Mark D Pagel, Jingfei Ma. Deep learning for early prediction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in triple negative breast cancers [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-08-03.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zijian Zhou
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - David E Rauch
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Mary S Guirguis
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Wei Yang
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Medine Boge
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Rania M Mohamed
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gary J Whitman
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Deanna L Lane
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | | | - David A Spak
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Miral M Patel
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Frances Perez
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Debu Tripathy
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Vicente Valero
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Clinton Yam
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Stacy Moulder
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jason B White
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jong Bum Son
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Mark D Pagel
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jingfei Ma
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Elshafeey N, Hwang KP, Adrada BE, Candelaria RP, Boge M, Mahmoud RM, Chen H, Sun J, Yang W, Kotrotsou A, Musall BC, Son JB, Whitman GJ, Leung J, Le-Petross H, Santiago L, Lane DL, Scoggins ME, Spak DA, Guirguis MS, Patel MM, Perez F, Abdelhafez AH, White JB, Huo L, Ravenberg E, Peng W, Thompson A, Damodaran S, Tripathy D, Moulder SL, Yam C, Pagel MD, Ma J, Rauch GM. Abstract PD11-06: Radiomics model based on magnetic resonance image compilation (MagIC) as early predictor of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-pd11-06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background and Purpose: There is currently lack of recognized imaging criteria for prediction of treatment response to NAST in breast cancer patients. And early identification of treatment response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) in Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) patients is important for appropriate treatment selection and response monitoring. A novel MRI sequence, Magnetic Resonance Image Compilation (MagIC) is capable of simultaneous quantitation of several tissue water properties including longitudinal (T1), transverse (T2) relaxation times, and proton density (PD). In this study we evaluated the ability of a radiomic model extracted from a novel MagIC sequence acquired early during NAST to predict pathologic complete response to NAST in TNBC. Materials and Methods: This IRB approved prospective ARTEMIS trial (NCT02276443) included 184 women (122 training dataset, 62 testing dataset) diagnosed with stage I-III TNBC. All patients were scanned with MagIC on a 3T MRI scanner at baseline (184 patients), and after 4 cycles (156 Patients) of NAST. T1, T2 and PD maps were generated from the source images using SyMRI (SyntheticMR, Linkoping, Sweden). Histopathology at surgery was used to determine pathologic complete response (pCR) which was defined as absence of the invasive cancer in the breast and axillary lymph nodes. 3D contouring of the tumors was performed using an in-house toolbox. 310 (10 first-order, 300 GLCM) textural features were extracted from each map, with total of 930 features/patient. Radiomic features were compared between pCR and non-pCR using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and Fisher’s exact test. To build a multivariate, predictive model, logistic regression with elastic net regularization was performed for texture feature selection. The tuning parameter was optimized using 5-fold cross-validation based on the average area under curve (AUC) of each fold of a cross-validation using training data. Then the testing data were used to compare model’s performance by AUC. Results: Univariate analysis found 23 PD, 17 T1 and 10 T2 radiomic features at C4 time point to be able to predict pCR status with AUC >70% in both training and testing cohort. The top performing radiomic features were Entropy, Variance, Homogeneity and Energy (Tables1-2). Multivariate radiomics models from C4-PD, and C4-T1 maps showed best performance during both cross validation and independent testing. The radiomic signature of C4-T1 map that included 27features had best performance, with an AUC of 0.77, 0.70 (95% CI: 0.571-0.868) in training and testing cohort respectively. C4-PD map radiomic signature that included 6features was able to predict the pCR status with AUC of 0.73, 0.72 (95% CI: 0.571-0.868) in training and testing cohort respectively. Conclusion: Our data found that MagIC-based radiomics signature could potentially predict pathologic complete response in TNBC early during NAST. This data shows the potential application of MagIC radiomic model for improvement of response assessment in TNBC.
Table 1.Best performing radiomic features from PD map after 4 cycles of NAST in TNBC patients.FeatureTraining CohortTraining CohortTraining CohortTesting CohortTesting CohortTesting CohortNAUC95% CINAUC95% CIP-valuePD-mapAngular Variance of Sum entropy1060.73820.6437-0.8328500.73240.5895-0.8752<0.001Range of Sum entropy1060.73930.6446-0.834500.72120.5753-0.867<0.001Angular Variance of Sum entropy1060.75960.6662-0.853500.70190.5538-0.8501<0.001Average of Sum entropy1060.73470.6367-0.8327500.70990.5613-0.8585<0.001Angular Variance of Sum variance1060.70160.602-0.8011500.70190.5543-0.8495<0.001Range of Sum variance1060.70050.6001-0.8009500.700.5499-0.8476<0.001
Table 2.Best performing radiomic features from T1-T2 maps after 4 cycles of NAST in TNBC patients.FeatureTraining CohortTraining CohortTraining CohortTesting CohortTesting CohortTesting CohortNAUC95% CINAUC95% CIP-valueT1-mapAngular Variance of Sum entropy1060.76530.6762-0.8544500.70510.5524-0.8579<0.001Range of Sum entropy1060.76530.6759-0.8547500.70350.5503-0.8567<0.001Average of Entropy1060.75250.6568-0.8482500.71630.572-0.8607<0.001Average of Sum entropy1060.750.6552-0.8448500.70190.555-0.8488<0.001Angular Variance of Energy1060.7450.6493-0.8407500.73080.59-0.8715<0.001Range of Energy1060.74290.6466-0.8392500.72920.5885-0.8699<0.001Average of Energy1060.74110.6438-0.8384500.7260.5852-0.8667<0.001Average of Entropy1060.73360.635-0.8322500.74040.602-0.8787<0.001Average of Maximum probability1060.70760.6054-0.8098500.71630.5704-0.8623<0.001Range of Maximum probability1060.70550.6018-0.8092500.75640.6195-0.8933<0.001T2-mapAngular Variance of Energy1060.74820.6531-0.8433500.70990.5644-0.8555<0.001Range of Energy1060.7450.6495-0.8405500.70350.5569-0.8501<0.001Average of Entropy1060.74070.6416-0.8399500.72920.585-0.8733<0.001Average of Sum entropy1060.73860.6405-0.8367500.72440.5797-0.869<0.001Average of Energy1060.73180.6309-0.8327500.72120.5743-0.86<0.001Angular Variance of Sum entropy1060.7290.631-0.827500.72760.5857-0.8695<0.001Range of Sum entropy1060.72760.6295-0.8257500.72280.5796-0.8659<0.001Average of Information measure of correlation 11060.71580.6147-0.8169500.70990.5638-0.8561<0.001Average of Entropy1060.700.5903-0.8028500.74360.6014-0.8858<0.001
Citation Format: Nabil Elshafeey, Ken-Pin Hwang, Beatriz Elena Adrada, Rosalind Pitpitan Candelaria, Medine Boge, Rania M Mahmoud, Huiqin Chen, Jia Sun, Wei Yang, Aikaterini Kotrotsou, Benjamin C Musall, Jong Bum Son, Gary J Whitman, Jessica Leung, Huong Le-Petross, Lumarie Santiago, Deanna Lynn Lane, Marion Elizabeth Scoggins, David Allen Spak, Mary Saber Guirguis, Miral Mahesh Patel, Frances Perez, Abeer H Abdelhafez, Jason B White, Lei Huo, Elizabeth Ravenberg, Wei Peng, Alastair Thompson, Senthil Damodaran, Debu Tripathy, Stacey L Moulder, Clinton Yam, Mark David Pagel, Jingfei Ma, Gaiane Margishvili Rauch. Radiomics model based on magnetic resonance image compilation (MagIC) as early predictor of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy in triple-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD11-06.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nabil Elshafeey
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Ken-Pin Hwang
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Medine Boge
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Rania M Mahmoud
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Huiqin Chen
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jia Sun
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Wei Yang
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Jong Bum Son
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gary J Whitman
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jessica Leung
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Frances Perez
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Jason B White
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lei Huo
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Wei Peng
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Debu Tripathy
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Clinton Yam
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Jingfei Ma
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Wu C, Jarrett AM, Zhou Z, Elshafeey N, Adrada BE, Candelaria RP, Mohamed RM, Boge M, Huo L, White J, Tripathy D, Valero V, Litton J, Moulder S, Yam C, Son JB, Ma J, Rauch GM, Yankeelov TE. Abstract P1-08-08: Forecasting treatment response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy in triple negative breast cancer viamathematical modeling and quantitative MRI. Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-p1-08-08] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction:. Patients with locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) typically receive neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) to downstage the tumor and to improve the outcome of the subsequent breast conservation surgery. A critical unmet need is the lack of a method to accurately predict how a patient with TNBC will respond to NAT before surgery. In this work, we applied a clinical-computational framework to predict response of TNBC early in the course of NAT, by integrating quantitative MRI with mechanism-based mathematical modeling. Methods:. Patients and Data. Multiparametric quantitative MRI was acquired in patients (n = 46) before, and after 2 and 4 cycles of Adriamycin/Cyclophosphamide (A/C) regimen as part of the MD Anderson Cancer Center TNBC Moonshot Program. Within each imaging session, dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and a pre-contrast T1-map were acquired. Image processing. The processing pipeline consisted of three components. First, the images within each visit were registered to account for patient motion, and the parametric maps from the DCE and DWI images were computed. Second, inter-visit image registration was achieved by a non-rigid registration applied on breast, with a rigid penalty applied on the tumor region to preserve its size and shape. Third, post-processing was performed for preparation of modeling, including segmentation of the breast contour and tissues, and calculation of voxel-wise cellularity within tumors. Mathematical modeling. A predictive model was developed based on a reaction-diffusion equation (Eq. 1). The mobility of tumor cells is represented by diffusion coupled to mechanical properties of the tissue (Eq. 2), and the proliferation of the tumor is described with logistic growth. The injection and decay of administered therapies, inducing tumor cell death, is also represented in the model (Eq. 3). The variables and parameters used are listed in Table 1. Eq. 1: ∂N(x,t)/∂t = ∇⋅(D(x,t) ∇N(x,t)) + k(x) (1 - N(x,t)/θ)N(x,t) - (λ1(x,t) + λ2(x,t))N(x,t). Eq. 2: D(x,t) = D0 e-γσ(x,t). Eq. 3: λn(x,t) = αne-βn t C(x,t), n = 1, 2. For each patient, the domain and initial condition were generated from the pre-treatment images, and the images acquired during NAT were used for patient-specific calibration of parameters. The calibrated model was then used to predict the response to be observed at the end of NAT. We evaluated the model by comparing its predictions of tumor volume, longest axis, voxel-wise cellularity, and total tumor cellularity to the imaging measurements at the end of A/C. Results:. Our model predicted the tumor volume, total cellularity, and longest axis with a Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) of 0.85, 0.80, and 0.60, respectively. The accuracy of voxel-wise cellularity achieved a PCC with the median (range) of 0.89 (0.77 - 0.93) between the prediction and the actual measurement. Moreover, we set criteria of 70% shrinkage of tumor volume to define response versus non-response cases, with which our model achieved a differentiation sensitivity/specificity of 0.90/0.73. Discussion:. Preliminary results of our study demonstrate the potential of the clinical-computational framework as a powerful tool for predicting response to NAT. Once validated, the method could also assist in optimizing treatment plans on a patient specific basis, or guiding patient selection in trials for novel NAT regimens.
Table 1. Summary of the variables and parameters in the modelQuantitiesDefinition AssignmentDomainsΩbreast tissue domainGenerated from pre-treatment MRITEnd time point of NAT procedureDetermined from NAT schedulexCoordinate in breast tissueAssociated with spatial domain, ΩttimeAssociated with temporal domain, [0, T]VariablesN(x,t)Tumor cell numberInitialized from pre-treatment ADC, computed via Eq. 1D(x,t)Diffusive mobility of tumor cellsComputed via Eq. 2λn(x,t)Death rate induced by nth type of drugComputed via Eq. 3, n = 1 and 2 for A/Cσ(x,t)Von Mises stressComputed from gradient of N(x,t), based on Hormuth et al., 2018C(x,t)Spatiotemporal distribution of drugsAssigned based on NAT schedule and DCE imagesParametersk(x)Proliferation rate of tumor cellsLocally calibratedθTumor cells carry capacityGlobally calibratedαnEfficacy rate of nth type of drugGlobally calibratedβnDecay rate of of nth type of drugGlobally calibratedD0Diffusion coefficient of tumor cells in the absence of mechanical restrictionsGlobally calibratedγStress-tumor cell diffusion coupling constantAssigned based on Hormuth et al., 2018
Citation Format: Chengyue Wu, Angela M. Jarrett, Zijian Zhou, Nabil Elshafeey, Beatriz E. Adrada, Rosalind P. Candelaria, Rania M. Mohamed, Medine Boge, Lei Huo, Jason White, Debu Tripathy, Vicente Valero, Jennifer Litton, Stacy Moulder, Clinton Yam, Jong Bum Son, Jingfei Ma, Gaiane M. Rauch, Thomas E. Yankeelov. Forecasting treatment response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy in triple negative breast cancer viamathematical modeling and quantitative MRI [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-08-08.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chengyue Wu
- The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
| | | | - Zijian Zhou
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Nabil Elshafeey
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | - Medine Boge
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lei Huo
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jason White
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Debu Tripathy
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Vicente Valero
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jennifer Litton
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Clinton Yam
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jong Bum Son
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jingfei Ma
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gaiane M. Rauch
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Zhang S, Rauch GM, Adrada BE, Boge M, Mohamed RMM, Abdelhafez AH, Son JB, Sun J, Elshafeey NA, White JB, Musall BC, Miyoshi M, Wang X, Kotrotsou A, Wei P, Hwang KP, Ma J, Pagel MD. Assessment of Early Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Using Amide Proton Transfer-weighted Chemical Exchange Saturation Transfer MRI: A Pilot Study. Radiol Imaging Cancer 2021; 3:e200155. [PMID: 34477453 PMCID: PMC8489465 DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2021200155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/15/2023]
Abstract
Purpose To determine if amide proton transfer-weighted chemical exchange saturation transfer (APTW CEST) MRI is useful in the early assessment of treatment response in persons with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods In this prospective study, a total of 51 participants (mean age, 51 years [range, 26-79 years]) with TNBC were included who underwent APTW CEST MRI with 0.9- and 2.0-µT saturation power performed at baseline, after two cycles (C2), and after four cycles (C4) of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST). Imaging was performed between January 31, 2019, and November 11, 2019, and was a part of a clinical trial (registry number NCT02744053). CEST MR images were analyzed using two methods-magnetic transfer ratio asymmetry (MTRasym) and Lorentzian line shape fitting. The APTW CEST signals at baseline, C2, and C4 were compared for 51 participants to evaluate the saturation power levels and analysis methods. The APTW CEST signals and their changes during NAST were then compared for the 26 participants with pathology reports for treatment response assessment. Results A significant APTW CEST signal decrease was observed during NAST when acquisition at 0.9-µT saturation power was paired with Lorentzian line shape fitting analysis and when the acquisition at 2.0 µT was paired with MTRasym analysis. Using 0.9-µT saturation power and Lorentzian line shape fitting, the APTW CEST signal at C2 was significantly different from baseline in participants with pathologic complete response (pCR) (3.19% vs 2.43%; P = .03) but not with non-pCR (2.76% vs 2.50%; P > .05). The APTW CEST signal change was not significant between pCR and non-pCR at all time points. Conclusion Quantitative APTW CEST MRI depended on optimizing acquisition saturation powers and analysis methods. APTW CEST MRI monitored treatment effects but did not differentiate participants with TNBC who had pCR from those with non-pCR. © RSNA, 2021 Clinical trial registration no. NCT02744053 Supplemental material is available for this article.Keywords Molecular Imaging-Cancer, Molecular Imaging-Clinical Translation, MR-Imaging, Breast, Technical Aspects, Tumor Response, Technology Assessment.
Collapse
|
19
|
Zhou Z, Jain P, Lu Y, Macapinlac H, Wang ML, Son JB, Pagel MD, Xu G, Ma J. Computer-aided detection of mantle cell lymphoma on 18F-FDG PET/CT using a deep learning convolutional neural network. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 11:260-270. [PMID: 34513279 PMCID: PMC8414404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 06/14/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
18F-FDG PET/CT can provide quantitative characterization with prognostic value for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). However, detection of MCL is performed manually, which is labor intensive and not a part of the routine clinical practice. This study investigates a deep learning convolutional neural network (DLCNN) for computer-aided detection of MCL on 18F-FDG PET/CT. We retrospectively analyzed 142 baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT scans of biopsy-confirmed MCL acquired between May 2007 and October 2018. Of the 142 scans, 110 were from our institution and 32 were from outside institutions. An Xception-based U-Net was constructed to classify each pixel of the PET/CT images as MCL or not. The network was first trained and tested on the within-institution scans by applying five-fold cross-validation. Sensitivity and false positives (FPs) per patient were calculated for network evaluation. The network was then tested on the outside-institution scans, which were excluded from network training. For the 110 within-institution patients (85 male; median age, 58 [range: 39-84] years), the network achieved an overall median sensitivity of 88% (interquartile range [IQR]: 25%) with 15 (IQR: 12) FPs/patient. Sensitivity was dependent on lesion size and SUVmax but not on lesion location. For the 32 outside-institution patients (24 male; median age, 59 [range: 40-67] years), the network achieved a median sensitivity of 84% (IQR: 24%) with 14 (IQR: 10) FPs/patient. No significant performance difference was found between the within and outside institution scans. Therefore, DLCNN can potentially help with MCL detection on 18F-FDG PET/CT with high sensitivity and limited FPs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zijian Zhou
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TX, USA
| | - Preetesh Jain
- Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TX, USA
| | - Yang Lu
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TX, USA
| | - Homer Macapinlac
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TX, USA
| | - Michael L Wang
- Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TX, USA
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TX, USA
| | - Mark D Pagel
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TX, USA
- Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TX, USA
| | - Guofan Xu
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TX, USA
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Elshafeey N, Adrada BE, Candelaria RP, Abdelhafez AH, Musall BC, Sun J, Boge M, Mohamed RM, Mahmoud HS, Son JB, Kotrosou A, Zhang S, Leung J, Lane D, Scoggins M, Spak D, Arribas E, Santiago L, Whitman GJ, Le-Petross HT, Moseley TW, White JB, Ravenberg E, Hwang KP, Wei P, Litton JK, Huo L, Tripathy D, Valero V, Thompson AM, Moulder S, Yang WT, Pagel MD, Ma J, Rauch GM. Abstract PD6-06: Radiomic phenotypes from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) parametric maps for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. Cancer Res 2021. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs20-pd6-06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background and Purpose:Early and accurate assessment ofbreast cancer response to NAST is important for patient management. In this study, we investigated the value of radiomic phenotypes derived from semi-quantitative and quantitative DCE-MRI parametric maps for early prediction of NASTresponse in TNBC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This IRB approved study included 74 patients with stage I-III TNBC who were enrolled in the prospective ARTEMIS trial (NCT02276443). Pathologic complete response (pCR) and non-pCR were assessed by surgical histopathology after NAST (pCR=34; non-pCR=40).MRI scans were obtained at 3 time points during the NAST treatment with every 2-week anthracycline-based chemotherapy (AC): at baseline (BSL=74), post-2 cycles of AC (C2= 27) and post-4 cycles of AC (C4= 27). Patients went on to receive taxane-based chemotherapy prior to surgery. Tumor regions of interest (ROIs) were segmented by a breast radiologist at the early-phase subtractions of DCE-MRI scans using in-house developed software, followed by co-registration of the ROIs with quantitative (Ktrans, Veand Kep), and semi-quantitative DCE parametric maps (Maximum Slope Increase (MSI), Positive Enhancement Integral (PEI) and Peak Signal Enhancement Ratio (SER)).A total of 93 first order radiomic features were extracted from the tumor ROIs of each time point semi-quantitative DCE parametric map, while a total of 390 extracted radiomic features (first order-histogram features and second order grey-level-co-occurrence matrix) were extracted from each quantitative DCE parametric map using an in-house developed Matlab software.Radiomic features at each time point and changes between the 3 time points were compared between pCR and non-pCR using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and Fisher’s exact test. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) was used to determine which features predicted pCR.Logistic regression was performed for feature selection, and used to build the radiomic phenotype model. The model performance was assessed by leave-one-out cross validation and 3-fold cross validation. RESULTS:Thirty-three radiomic features from PEI map were significantly different between pCR and non-pCR. The PEI most significant features were changesbetween BSL and C4 in skewness, mean and median (AUC=0.87, 0.85 and 0.87, p=<0.001, 0.001 and 0.002 respectively). Additionally, 31 MSI features were significantly different between pCR and non-pCR. The top 2 features were the interscan-change in skewness between BSL and C2 (AUC=0.80, P=0.007) and C4 standard deviation (AUC=0.80, P=0.006). Four BSL Veradiomic features were statistically significant between pCR and non-pCR with the best being range of difference variance (AUC=0.64, P=0.03). One BSL Kepfeature (Angular-Variance of Information measure of correlation-2) was able to differentiate pCR from non-pCR (AUC=0.64, P=0.04). Five C4-Ktrans features were able to differentiate pCR and non-pCR, with the most significant being mean value (AUC=0.86, P=0.001). BSL-Kepradiomic model built from 24 features (AUC=0.80, p=0.003) and combined (Ktrans, Veand Kep)C2-radiomic model consisting of 20 features (AUC=0.97, p=0.01) showed the best performance for prediction of pCR. CONCLUSIONS:Radiomic phenotypes form DCE-MRI parametric maps were useful for differentiation between pCR and non-pCR and showed promise as noninvasive imaging biomarkers for early prediction of NAST response in TNBC. Potentially, DCE-MRI radiomic features may be used for development of diagnostic predictive model for early noninvasive assessment of NAST treatment response in TNBC patients.
Citation Format: Nabil Elshafeey, Beatriz E Adrada, Rosalind P Candelaria, Abeer H Abdelhafez, Benjamin C Musall, Jia Sun, Medine Boge, Rania M.M Mohamed, Hagar S Mahmoud, Jong Bum Son, Aikaterini Kotrosou, Shu Zhang, Jessica Leung, Deanna Lane, Marion Scoggins, David Spak, Elsa Arribas, Lumarie Santiago, Gary J. Whitman, Huong T Le-Petross, Tanya W Moseley, Jason B White, Elizabeth Ravenberg, Ken-Pin Hwang, Peng Wei, Jennifer K Litton, Lei Huo, Debu Tripathy, Vicente Valero, Alastair M Thompson, Stacy Moulder, Wei T Yang, Mark D Pagel, Jingfei Ma, Gaiane M Rauch. Radiomic phenotypes from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) parametric maps for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD6-06.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nabil Elshafeey
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Beatriz E Adrada
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Abeer H Abdelhafez
- 2Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Benjamin C Musall
- 3Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States, Houston, TX
| | - Jia Sun
- 4Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States, Houston, TX
| | - Medine Boge
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Rania M.M Mohamed
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Hagar S Mahmoud
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jong Bum Son
- 5Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Aikaterini Kotrosou
- 6Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Shu Zhang
- 6Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jessica Leung
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Deanna Lane
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Marion Scoggins
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - David Spak
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Elsa Arribas
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lumarie Santiago
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gary J. Whitman
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Huong T Le-Petross
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Tanya W Moseley
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jason B White
- 7Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Elizabeth Ravenberg
- 7Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Ken-Pin Hwang
- 5Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Peng Wei
- 5Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jennifer K Litton
- 7Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lei Huo
- 8Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Debu Tripathy
- 7Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Vicente Valero
- 7Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Stacy Moulder
- 7Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Wei T Yang
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Mark D Pagel
- 10Imaging Physics and Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jingfei Ma
- 5Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gaiane M Rauch
- 11Breast and Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Zhang S, Rauch GM, Adrada BE, Boge M, Mohamed RMM, Abdelhafez AH, Son JB, Sun J, Elshafeey NA, White JB, Lane DL, Leung JWT, Scoggins ME, Spak DA, Arribas E, Ravenberg E, Santiago L, Moseley TW, Whitman GJ, Le-Petross H, Musall BC, Miyoshi M, Wang X, Willis B, Hash S, Kotrotsou A, Wei P, Hwang KP, Thompson A, Moulder SL, Candelaria RP, Yang W, Ma J, Pagel MD. Abstract PS3-08: Assessment of early response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) using chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) MRI: A pilot study. Cancer Res 2021. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs20-ps3-08] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction CEST MRI permits quantitation of macromolecules such as amide proteins that are of interest in cancer metabolism. However, optimal CEST acquisition and analysis methods remain undetermined. In this study, we investigated CEST MRI as an imaging biomarker for early treatment response in 51 TNBC patients receiving NAST and compared the performance with two different CEST saturation power levels and two analysis methods.
Methods A total of 51 stage I-III TNBC patients enrolled in the prospective ARTEMIS trial (NCT02276443) had CEST imaging performed on a 3T MRI scanner at baseline before NAST (BL, N = 51), after 2 cycles (C2, N = 37), and 4 cycles (C4, N = 44) of NAST. 33 of the 51 patients had imaging at all 3 time points. 29 of the 33 patients had pathological findings, with N = 16 with pathological complete response (pCR) and N = 13 with non-pCR. Two sets of CEST images using 0.9 and 2.0 µT saturation power levels were acquired and analyzed using the magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry (MTRasym) and the Lorentzian line fitting (Mag3.5) methods, for a total of 4 acquisition/analysis combinations. The group averaged CEST signals, MTRasym at 0.9 and 2.0 µT and Mag3.5 at 0.9 and 2.0 µT, at BL, C2 and C4 were determined and evaluated using unpaired (51 patients) and paired (33 patients) Kruskal-Wallis tests. The Mag3.5 at 0.9 µT and the MTRasym at 2.0 µT were further compared between pCR and non-pCR. The group averaged CEST signals at BL, C2, and C4 were evaluated using the Friedman test for the pCR and the non-PCR groups. Separately, the change in the CEST signal from BL to C2 and C4 was determined for each patient and evaluated using the Mann-Whitney test for both groups. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results The MTRasym at BL was higher at 2.0 µT than at 0.9 µT. In contrast, the Mag3.5 at BL was higher at 0.9 µT than at 2.0 µT. The MTRasym at 2.0 µT and the Mag3.5 at 0.9 µT decreased during treatment while the MTRasym at 0.9 µT and the Mag3.5 at 2.0 µT were similar. Both the unpaired and the paired Mag3.5 at 0.9 µT showed a significant decrease at C2 and C4 vs. BL (p < 0.01). The unpaired and paired MTRasym at 2.0 µT showed a decrease, although the change was not significant except for the unpaired data at C4. The decrease in the group averaged Mag3.5 at 0.9 µT was significant at C2 vs. BL for the pCR group (p = 0.04), while it was not significant for the pCR group at C4 vs. BL and for the non-pCR group at either C2 or C4 vs. BL. The group averaged MTRasym at 2.0 µT changes were not significant for either the pCR or the non-pCR groups. None of the CEST signal changes on a per patient basis at C2-BL, C4-BL and C4-C2 were significantly different between the pCR and the non-pCR groups. Further, none of the group averaged CEST signals at BL, C2 and C4 were significantly different between the pCR and the non-pCR groups.
Conclusion Our study demonstrates that the CEST quantitation in TNBC patients undergoing NAST depends on acquisition and analysis. For a maximum change in the CEST effect, Lorentzian line fitting is better paired with acquisition at a low saturation power (0.9 µT) and MTRasym is better paired with acquisition at a high saturation power (2.0 µT). Further, a significant CEST signal decrease was observed in TNBC patients with pCR after NAST when a 0.9 µT saturation power and the Lorentzian line fitting were used. In comparison, the decrease was not significant in non-pCR patients using the same saturation power and analysis method. The results suggest that the CEST signal acquired at 0.9 µT saturation power and analyzed using Lorentzian line fitting may be able to differentiate between pCR and non-pCR among TNBC patients undergoing NAST. Additional studies with a larger patient population are ongoing to further validate our findings and their potential for determining pCR.
Citation Format: Shu Zhang, Gaiane M Rauch, Beatriz E Adrada, Medine Boge, Rania MM Mohamed, Abeer H Abdelhafez, Jong Bum Son, Jia Sun, Nabil A Elshafeey, Jason B White, Deanna L Lane, Jessica WT Leung, Marion E Scoggins, David A Spak, Elsa Arribas, Elizabeth Ravenberg, Lumarie Santiago, Tanya W Moseley, Gary J Whitman, Huong Le-Petross, Benjamin C Musall, Mitsuharu Miyoshi, Xinzeng Wang, Brandy Willis, Stacy Hash, Aikaterini Kotrotsou, Peng Wei, Ken-Pin Hwang, Alastair Thompson, Stacy L Moulder, Rosalind P Candelaria, Wei Yang, Jingfei Ma, Mark D Pagel. Assessment of early response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) using chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) MRI: A pilot study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS3-08.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shu Zhang
- 1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Jia Sun
- 1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Stacy Hash
- 1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Peng Wei
- 1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | | | - Wei Yang
- 1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jingfei Ma
- 1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Rauch GM, Beatriz AE, Candelaria RP, Elshafeey N, Abdelhafez AH, Musall BC, Sun J, Boge M, Mohamed RM, Son JB, Zhang S, Leung J, Lane D, Scoggins M, Spak D, Arribas E, Santiago L, Whitman GJ, Le-Petross HT, Moseley TW, White JB, Ravenberg E, Hwang KP, Wei P, Huo L, Litton JK, Valero V, Tripathy D, Thompson AM, Pagel MD, Ma J, Yang WT, Moulder S. Abstract PD6-07: Volumetric changes on longitudinal dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging (DCE-MRI) as an early treatment response predictor to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. Cancer Res 2021. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs20-pd6-07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background and Purpose:There is currently a lack of recognized imaging criteria for prediction of treatment response to NAST in breast cancer patients with recent reports showing that breast MRI is the most accurate modality for evaluation of NAST response. DCE-MRI evaluates tumor perfusion that influences tumor enhancement at the post-contrast subtraction images and allows for more accurate measurement of changes in tumor volume during NAST. In this study, we evaluated the ability of tumor volumetric changes after 2 and 4 cycles of NAST by longitudinal ultrafast DCE-MRI to predict pathologic complete response (pCR) in TNBC undergoing NAST. Materials and Methods: Stage I-III TNBC patients enrolled in an IRB approved prospective clinical trial (ARTEMIS, NCT02276433) who had ultrafast DCE-MRI at baseline (BL, N=103), post 2 cycles (C2, N=59), and post 4 cycles (C4, N=103) of anthracycline-based NAST,and had surgery, were included in this analysis. Tumor volume was calculated using 3D measurements of the index lesion at BL, C2, and C4. Percent change of tumor volume (%TV) between BL, C2, and C4 was calculated at early (9-12 sec) and delayed (360-480 sec) phases of DCE-MRI. The largest lesion was used for analysis in patients with multicentric or multifocal disease. Demographic, clinical, and pathologic data and treatment response at surgery (pCR versus non-pCR) were documented. Receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) analysis was performed for prediction of pCR status. Positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and Youden Index were used to select %TV cut-off thresholds for pCR prediction.Results: 103 patients (median age, 53 years; range, 24-79 years) were included, 48 (47%) had pCR, and 55 (53%) had non-pCR at surgical pathology. The %TV reduction at C2 DCE-MRI was predictive of pCR on both early phase DCE MRI (AUC, 0.873; CI:0.779-0.968, p < .0001) and delayed phase DCE MRI (AUC, 0.844; CI:0.742-0.947, p < .0001). Optimal thresholds were as follows: 70% TV reduction on early phase DCE MRI with Youden’s index of 1.58 was able to predict pCR correctly for 79% of patients with PPV of 81%; 75% TV reduction on delayed phase with Youden’s Index of 1.44 was able to predict pCR correctly for 71% of patients with PPV of 85%.%TV reduction was also predictive of pCR at the C4 time point on both early phase DCE MRI (AUC, 0.761; CI:0.665-0.856, p < .0001) and delayed phase DCE MRI (AUC, 0.737; CI:0.641-0.833, p < .0001). Optimal thresholds were as follows: 90% TV reduction on early phase DCE MRI with Youden’s index of 1.43 was able to correctly predict pCR in 72% of patients with PPV of 70%; and 90% TV reduction on delayed phase with Youden’s Index of 1.34 was able to predict pCR correctly in 68% of patients with PPV of 71%.Conclusion: Our data shows that percent tumor volume reduction by DCE-MRI after 2 and 4 cycles of NAST was able to predict pCR in TNBC with high accuracy and can be used as an early imaging biomarker of NAST response prediction. Volumetric changes by longitudinal DCE-MRI can be used to differentiate chemoresistant and chemosensitive TNBC patients as early as after 2 cycles of NAST, and can help to triage patients for treatment de-escalation or targeted therapy.
Citation Format: Gaiane Margishvili Rauch, Adrada E Beatriz, Rosalind P Candelaria, Nabil Elshafeey, Abeer H Abdelhafez, Benjamin C Musall, Jia Sun, Medina Boge, Rania M.M Mohamed, Jong Bum Son, Shu Zhang, Jessica Leung, Deanna Lane, Marion Scoggins, David Spak, Elsa Arribas, Lumarie Santiago, Gary J Whitman, Huong T. Le-Petross, Tanya W Moseley, Jason B. White, Elizabeth Ravenberg, Ken-Pin Hwang, Peng Wei, Lei Huo, Jennifer K Litton, Vicente Valero, Debu Tripathy, Alastair M Thompson, Mark D Pagel, Jingfei Ma, Wei T Yang, Stacy Moulder. Volumetric changes on longitudinal dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging (DCE-MRI) as an early treatment response predictor to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD6-07.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Adrada E Beatriz
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Nabil Elshafeey
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Abeer H Abdelhafez
- 2Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Benjamin C Musall
- 3Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jia Sun
- 4Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Medina Boge
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Rania M.M Mohamed
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jong Bum Son
- 3Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Shu Zhang
- 5Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jessica Leung
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Deanna Lane
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Marion Scoggins
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - David Spak
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Elsa Arribas
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lumarie Santiago
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gary J Whitman
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Huong T. Le-Petross
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Tanya W Moseley
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jason B. White
- 6Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Elizabeth Ravenberg
- 6Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Ken-Pin Hwang
- 3Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Peng Wei
- 4Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lei Huo
- 7Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jennifer K Litton
- 6Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Vicente Valero
- 6Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Debu Tripathy
- 6Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Mark D Pagel
- 9Imaging Physics and Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jingfei Ma
- 3Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Wei T Yang
- 1Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Stacy Moulder
- 6Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Musall BC, Abdelhafez AH, Adrada BE, Candelaria RP, Mohamed RMM, Boge M, Le-Petross H, Arribas E, Lane DL, Spak DA, Leung JWT, Hwang KP, Son JB, Elshafeey NA, Mahmoud HS, Wei P, Sun J, Zhang S, White JB, Ravenberg EE, Litton JK, Damodaran S, Thompson AM, Moulder SL, Yang WT, Pagel MD, Rauch GM, Ma J. Functional Tumor Volume by Fast Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Predicting Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy Response in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2021; 54:251-260. [PMID: 33586845 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27557] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2020] [Revised: 01/26/2021] [Accepted: 01/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI is useful for diagnosis and assessment of treatment response in breast cancer. Fast DCE MRI offers a higher sampling rate of contrast enhancement curves in comparison to conventional DCE MRI, potentially characterizing tumor perfusion kinetics more accurately for measurement of functional tumor volume (FTV) as a predictor of treatment response. PURPOSE To investigate FTV by fast DCE MRI as a predictor of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) response in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). STUDY TYPE Prospective. POPULATION/SUBJECTS Sixty patients with biopsy-confirmed TNBC between December 2016 and September 2020. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE A 3.0 T/3D fast spoiled gradient echo-based DCE MRI ASSESSMENT: Patients underwent MRI at baseline and after four cycles (C4) of NAST, followed by definitive surgery. DCE subtraction images were analyzed in consensus by two breast radiologists with 5 (A.H.A.) and 2 (H.S.M.) years of experience. Tumor volumes (TV) were measured on early and late subtractions. Tumors were segmented on 1 and 2.5-minute early phases subtractions and FTV was determined using optimized signal enhancement thresholds. Interpolated enhancement curves from segmented voxels were used to determine optimal early phase timing. STATISTICAL TESTS Tumor volumes were compared between patients who had a pathologic complete response (pCR) and those who did not using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS About 26 of 60 patients (43%) had pCR. FTV at 1 minute after injection at C4 provided the best discrimination between pCR and non-pCR, with AUC (95% confidence interval [CI]) = 0.85 (0.74,0.95) (P < 0.05). The 1-minute timing was optimal for FTV measurements at C4 and for the change between C4 and baseline. TV from the early phase at C4 also yielded a good AUC (95%CI) of 0.82 (0.71,0.93) (P < 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION FTV and TV measured at 1 minute after injection can predict response to NAST in TNBC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: 4.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin C Musall
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Abeer H Abdelhafez
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Beatriz E Adrada
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Rosalind P Candelaria
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Rania M M Mohamed
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Medine Boge
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Huong Le-Petross
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Elsa Arribas
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Deanna L Lane
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David A Spak
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jessica W T Leung
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ken-Pin Hwang
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Nabil A Elshafeey
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Hagar S Mahmoud
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Peng Wei
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jia Sun
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Shu Zhang
- Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jason B White
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Elizabeth E Ravenberg
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jennifer K Litton
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Senthil Damodaran
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | - Stacy L Moulder
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Wei T Yang
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Mark D Pagel
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Gaiane M Rauch
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Zhou Z, Sanders JW, Johnson JM, Gule-Monroe M, Chen M, Briere TM, Wang Y, Son JB, Pagel MD, Ma J, Li J. MetNet: Computer-aided segmentation of brain metastases in post-contrast T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Radiother Oncol 2020; 153:189-196. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2020] [Revised: 08/26/2020] [Accepted: 09/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
25
|
Abdelhafez AH, Musall BC, Adrada BE, Hess K, Son JB, Hwang KP, Candelaria RP, Santiago L, Whitman GJ, Le-Petross HT, Moseley TW, Arribas E, Lane DL, Scoggins ME, Leung JWT, Mahmoud HS, White JB, Ravenberg EE, Litton JK, Valero V, Wei P, Thompson AM, Moulder SL, Pagel MD, Ma J, Yang WT, Rauch GM. Tumor necrosis by pretreatment breast MRI: association with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) response in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020; 185:1-12. [PMID: 32920733 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-05917-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2020] [Accepted: 09/01/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine if tumor necrosis by pretreatment breast MRI and its quantitative imaging characteristics are associated with response to NAST in TNBC. METHODS This retrospective study included 85 TNBC patients (mean age 51.8 ± 13 years) with MRI before NAST and definitive surgery during 2010-2018. Each MRI included T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging. For each index carcinoma, total tumor volume including necrosis (TTV), excluding necrosis (TV), and the necrosis-only volume (NV) were segmented on early-phase DCE subtractions and DWI images. NV and %NV were calculated. Percent enhancement on early and late phases of DCE and apparent diffusion coefficient were extracted from TTV, TV, and NV. Association between necrosis with pathological complete response (pCR) was assessed using odds ratio (OR). Multivariable analysis was used to evaluate the prognostic value of necrosis with T stage and nodal status at staging. Mann-Whitney U tests and area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess performance of imaging metrics for discriminating pCR vs non-pCR. RESULTS Of 39 patients (46%) with necrosis, 17 had pCR and 22 did not. Necrosis was not associated with pCR (OR, 0.995; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-2.3) and was not an independent prognostic factor when combined with T stage and nodal status at staging (P = 0.46). None of the imaging metrics differed significantly between pCR and non-pCR in patients with necrosis (AUC < 0.6 and P > 0.40). CONCLUSION No significant association was found between necrosis by pretreatment MRI or the quantitative imaging characteristics of tumor necrosis and response to NAST in TNBC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abeer H Abdelhafez
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Benjamin C Musall
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1472, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Beatriz E Adrada
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - KennethR Hess
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1411, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1472, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Ken-Pin Hwang
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1472, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Rosalind P Candelaria
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Lumarie Santiago
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Gary J Whitman
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Huong T Le-Petross
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Tanya W Moseley
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Elsa Arribas
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Deanna L Lane
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Marion E Scoggins
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Jessica W T Leung
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Hagar S Mahmoud
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Jason B White
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1354, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Elizabeth E Ravenberg
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1354, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Jennifer K Litton
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1354, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Vicente Valero
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1354, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Peng Wei
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1411, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Alastair M Thompson
- Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, 7200 Cambridge St., Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Stacy L Moulder
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1354, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Mark D Pagel
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1472, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.,Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1907, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1472, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Wei T Yang
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Gaiane M Rauch
- Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. .,Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Scoggins ME, Arun BK, Candelaria RP, Dryden MJ, Wei W, Son JB, Ma J, Dogan BE. Should abbreviated breast MRI be compliant with American College of Radiology requirements for MRI accreditation? Magn Reson Imaging 2020; 72:87-94. [PMID: 32622851 DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2020.06.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2020] [Revised: 06/01/2020] [Accepted: 06/24/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate non-inferiority and diagnostic performance of an American College of Radiology compliant abbreviated MRI protocol (AB-MRI) compared with standard-of-care breast MRI (SOC-BMRI) in patients with increased breast cancer risk. MATERIAL AND METHODS Women with increased lifetime breast cancer risk by American Cancer Society guidelines underwent breast MRI at a single institution between October 2015 and February 2018. AB-MRI was acquired at 3.0 T with T2-weighted extended fast spin echo triple-echo Dixon and pre- and post-contrast 3D dual-echo fast spoiled gradient echo two-point Dixon sequences with an 8-channel breast coil 1-7 days after SOC-BMRI. Three readers independently reviewed AB-MRI and assigned BI-RADS categories for maximum intensity projection images (AB1), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) images (AB2), and DCE and non-contrast T2 and fat-only images (AB3). These scores were compared to those from SOC-BMRI. RESULTS Cancer yield was 14 per 1000 (women-years) in 73 women aged 26-75 years (mean 53.5 years). AB-MRI acquisition times (mean 9.63 min) and table times (mean 15.07 min) were significantly shorter than those of SOC-BMRI (means 19.46 and 36.3 min, respectively) (p < .001). Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were identical for AB3 and SOC-BMRI (93%, 100%, 93%, 16.7%, and 100%, respectively). AB-MRI with AB1 and AB2 had significantly lower specificity (AB1 = 73.6%, AB2 = 77.8%), positive predictive values (AB1 = 5%, AB2 = 5.9%), and accuracy (AB1 = 74%, AB2 = 78%) than those of SOC-BMRI (p = .002 for AB1, p = .01 for AB2). CONCLUSION AB-MRI was acquired significantly faster than SOC-BMRI and its diagnostic performance was non-inferior. Inclusion of T2 and fat-only images was necessary to achieve non-inferiority by multireader evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marion E Scoggins
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77030, United States of America.
| | - Banu K Arun
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1354, Houston, TX 77030-4009, United States of America.
| | - Rosalind P Candelaria
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77030, United States of America.
| | - Mark J Dryden
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77030, United States of America.
| | - Wei Wei
- Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44195, United States of America.
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1472, Houston, TX 77030-4009, United States of America.
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1472, Houston, TX 77030-4009, United States of America.
| | - Basak E Dogan
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 2201 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75390-8585, United States of America.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Szklaruk J, Son JB, Starr BF, Sun J, Davila A, Bhosale PR, Ma J. Evaluation of feasibility and image quality of a new radial quantitative T2 weighted imaging sequence for liver MRI. Clin Imaging 2020; 66:77-81. [PMID: 32460150 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.05.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2020] [Revised: 04/14/2020] [Accepted: 05/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the clinical feasibility of a new T2 weighted sequence to calculate T2 relaxation times (T2RT) of liver lesions using two-dimensional radial turbo spin echo (2DRTSE) and to evaluate this sequence by performing image quality and relaxation time comparison of multiple liver lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospective analysis of 2DRTSE sequences (using 22 echoes) was performed in 19 patients with 36 liver lesions. Two radiologists independently obtained T2RTs for liver lesions and scored image quality and image artifacts. Lesions were classified as cyst, hemangioma, solid, or necrotic. T2RT values were compared. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated. RESULTS The 2DRTSE images were considered good quality with few artifacts by both radiologists. Nineteen patients were included in the study, with a total of 36 liver lesions. Two of the liver lesions were classified as cysts, 7 as hemangiomas, 4 as necrotic lesions, and 23 as solid lesions. The concordance correlation coefficient was 0.996 for the calculated T2RT of each liver lesion between the two readers, indicating good agreement. There was statically significant difference of the calculated T2RT for each lesion type. CONCLUSION The 2DRTSE sequence can be performed and provides good T2W image quality and a quantitative T2RT map of the entire abdomen. The liver lesions can be distinguished based on the calculated T2RT using this technique. 2DRTSE could potentially supplant the current T2-weighted imaging sequence with the benefit of quantitative T2RTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janio Szklaruk
- Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1473, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1472, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Bryce F Starr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, 201 Science Drive, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
| | - Jia Sun
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1411, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Anthony Davila
- Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1473, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Priya R Bhosale
- Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1473, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1472, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Zhou Z, Sanders JW, Johnson JM, Gule-Monroe MK, Chen MM, Briere TM, Wang Y, Son JB, Pagel MD, Li J, Ma J. Computer-aided Detection of Brain Metastases in T1-weighted MRI for Stereotactic Radiosurgery Using Deep Learning Single-Shot Detectors. Radiology 2020; 295:407-415. [PMID: 32181729 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020191479] [Citation(s) in RCA: 66] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Background Brain metastases are manually identified during stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment planning, which is time consuming and potentially challenging. Purpose To develop and investigate deep learning (DL) methods for detecting brain metastasis with MRI to aid in treatment planning for SRS. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, contrast material-enhanced three-dimensional T1-weighted gradient-echo MRI scans from patients who underwent gamma knife SRS from January 2011 to August 2018 were analyzed. Brain metastases were manually identified and contoured by neuroradiologists and treating radiation oncologists. DL single-shot detector (SSD) algorithms were constructed and trained to map axial MRI slices to a set of bounding box predictions encompassing metastases and associated detection confidences. Performances of different DL SSDs were compared for per-lesion metastasis-based detection sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) at a 50% confidence threshold. For the highest-performing model, detection performance was analyzed by using free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results Two hundred sixty-six patients (mean age, 60 years ± 14 [standard deviation]; 148 women) were randomly split into 80% training and 20% testing groups (212 and 54 patients, respectively). For the testing group, sensitivity of the highest-performing (baseline) SSD was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 80%, 82%; 190 of 234) and PPV was 36% (95% CI: 35%, 37%; 190 of 530). For metastases measuring at least 6 mm, sensitivity was 98% (95% CI: 97%, 99%; 130 of 132) and PPV was 36% (95% CI: 35%, 37%; 130 of 366). Other models (SSD with a ResNet50 backbone, SSD with focal loss, and RetinaNet) yielded lower sensitivities of 73% (95% CI: 72%, 74%; 171 of 234), 77% (95% CI: 76%, 78%; 180 of 234), and 79% (95% CI: 77%, 81%; 184 of 234), respectively, and lower PPVs of 29% (95% CI: 28%, 30%; 171 of 581), 26% (95% CI: 26%, 26%; 180 of 681), and 13% (95% CI: 12%, 14%; 184 of 1412). Conclusion Deep-learning single-shot detector models detected nearly all brain metastases that were 6 mm or larger with limited false-positive findings using postcontrast T1-weighted MRI. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Kikinis and Wells in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zijian Zhou
- From the Department of Imaging Physics (Z.Z., J.W.S., J.B.S., J.M.), Medical Physics Graduate Program, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (J.W.S.), Department of Diagnostic Radiology (J.M.J., M.K.G., M.M.C.), Department of Radiation Physics (T.M.B.), Department of Radiation Oncology (Y.W., J.L.), and Department of Cancer Systems Imaging (M.D.P.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Jeremiah W Sanders
- From the Department of Imaging Physics (Z.Z., J.W.S., J.B.S., J.M.), Medical Physics Graduate Program, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (J.W.S.), Department of Diagnostic Radiology (J.M.J., M.K.G., M.M.C.), Department of Radiation Physics (T.M.B.), Department of Radiation Oncology (Y.W., J.L.), and Department of Cancer Systems Imaging (M.D.P.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Jason M Johnson
- From the Department of Imaging Physics (Z.Z., J.W.S., J.B.S., J.M.), Medical Physics Graduate Program, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (J.W.S.), Department of Diagnostic Radiology (J.M.J., M.K.G., M.M.C.), Department of Radiation Physics (T.M.B.), Department of Radiation Oncology (Y.W., J.L.), and Department of Cancer Systems Imaging (M.D.P.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Maria K Gule-Monroe
- From the Department of Imaging Physics (Z.Z., J.W.S., J.B.S., J.M.), Medical Physics Graduate Program, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (J.W.S.), Department of Diagnostic Radiology (J.M.J., M.K.G., M.M.C.), Department of Radiation Physics (T.M.B.), Department of Radiation Oncology (Y.W., J.L.), and Department of Cancer Systems Imaging (M.D.P.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Melissa M Chen
- From the Department of Imaging Physics (Z.Z., J.W.S., J.B.S., J.M.), Medical Physics Graduate Program, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (J.W.S.), Department of Diagnostic Radiology (J.M.J., M.K.G., M.M.C.), Department of Radiation Physics (T.M.B.), Department of Radiation Oncology (Y.W., J.L.), and Department of Cancer Systems Imaging (M.D.P.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Tina M Briere
- From the Department of Imaging Physics (Z.Z., J.W.S., J.B.S., J.M.), Medical Physics Graduate Program, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (J.W.S.), Department of Diagnostic Radiology (J.M.J., M.K.G., M.M.C.), Department of Radiation Physics (T.M.B.), Department of Radiation Oncology (Y.W., J.L.), and Department of Cancer Systems Imaging (M.D.P.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Yan Wang
- From the Department of Imaging Physics (Z.Z., J.W.S., J.B.S., J.M.), Medical Physics Graduate Program, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (J.W.S.), Department of Diagnostic Radiology (J.M.J., M.K.G., M.M.C.), Department of Radiation Physics (T.M.B.), Department of Radiation Oncology (Y.W., J.L.), and Department of Cancer Systems Imaging (M.D.P.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Jong Bum Son
- From the Department of Imaging Physics (Z.Z., J.W.S., J.B.S., J.M.), Medical Physics Graduate Program, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (J.W.S.), Department of Diagnostic Radiology (J.M.J., M.K.G., M.M.C.), Department of Radiation Physics (T.M.B.), Department of Radiation Oncology (Y.W., J.L.), and Department of Cancer Systems Imaging (M.D.P.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Mark D Pagel
- From the Department of Imaging Physics (Z.Z., J.W.S., J.B.S., J.M.), Medical Physics Graduate Program, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (J.W.S.), Department of Diagnostic Radiology (J.M.J., M.K.G., M.M.C.), Department of Radiation Physics (T.M.B.), Department of Radiation Oncology (Y.W., J.L.), and Department of Cancer Systems Imaging (M.D.P.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Jing Li
- From the Department of Imaging Physics (Z.Z., J.W.S., J.B.S., J.M.), Medical Physics Graduate Program, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (J.W.S.), Department of Diagnostic Radiology (J.M.J., M.K.G., M.M.C.), Department of Radiation Physics (T.M.B.), Department of Radiation Oncology (Y.W., J.L.), and Department of Cancer Systems Imaging (M.D.P.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Jingfei Ma
- From the Department of Imaging Physics (Z.Z., J.W.S., J.B.S., J.M.), Medical Physics Graduate Program, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (J.W.S.), Department of Diagnostic Radiology (J.M.J., M.K.G., M.M.C.), Department of Radiation Physics (T.M.B.), Department of Radiation Oncology (Y.W., J.L.), and Department of Cancer Systems Imaging (M.D.P.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Adrada BE, Abdelhafez AH, Musall BC, Hess KR, Son JB, Pagel MD, Hwang KP, Candelaria RP, Santiago L, Whitman GJ, Le-Petross H, Moseley TW, Arribas E, Lane DL, Scoggins ME, Spak DA, Leung JW, Damodaran S, Lim B, Valeo V, White JB, Thompson AM, Litton JK, Moulder SL, Ma J, Yang WT, Rauch GM. Abstract P6-02-03: Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) radiomics of tumor and peritumoral regions as potential predictors of treatment response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. Cancer Res 2020. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-p6-02-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background and Purpose: TNBC is comprised of biologically aggressive tumors with diverse clinical behavior and response to chemotherapy. Prediction of disease response to NACT is critical to the development of personalized medicine in TNBC. We evaluated first-order radiomic features from quantitative ADC maps of the tumor and peritumoral region as discriminators of response to NACT in TNBC patients.
Materials and Methods: This IRB-approved prospective study (ARTEMIS trial, NCT02276443) included 34 patients with biopsy proven stage I-III TNBC who underwent evaluation of treatment response by multi-parametric MRI. Patients had a baseline MRI (BL) and a second MRI after 4 cycles (C4) of their treatment. After completion of NACT, all patients underwent surgery and were classified as pathologic complete response (pCR) or non-pCR.
Both MRI exams included T2W series, a dynamic contrast enhanced series (DCE), a conventional diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) series, and a reduced field of view (rFOV) DWI series. Tumor volumes were contoured by an experienced breast radiologist on ADC maps with reference to b1000 DWI images. Regions with necrosis or clip artifacts were excluded from the contour. Peritumoral regions were defined as a 5 mm rim of tissue surrounding the tumor based on DCE series, T2-weighted images with fat suppression and ADC maps. Thirteen first-order radiomic features, including mean, minimum, maximum, percentiles, kurtosis and skewness at a single measurement and the difference between BL and C4 were compared between pCR and non-pCR using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and Wilcoxon rank sum test.
Results: The kurtosis of tumor at C4 by conventional DWI was significantly higher in non-pCR than in pCR patients (AUC=0.785, p=0.0097). The change in kurtosis from BL to C4 by conventional DWI was also significantly higher in non-pCR than in pCR patients (AUC=0.73, p=0.043). The skewness of tumor at C4 by rFOV DWI scan was significantly lower in pCR than non-pCR patients (AUC=0.73, p=0.023).
The 10th percentile of the peritumoral region’s ADC was significantly different between pCR and non-pCR (mean=1.19, SD is ± 0.27 10-3 mm2/s vs mean=1.34, SD ± 0.27 10-3 mm2/s respectively, AUC=0.70, p=0.048). The kurtosis and 25th percentile of the ADC of peritumoral region were borderline significantly different between pCR and non-pCR (AUC=0.69, p=0.067; AUC=0.69, p= 0.073 respectively).
Conclusion: ADC first-order radiomic features from tumor and peritumoral region in TNBC may be useful for predicting treatment response to NACT. Larger study is necessary and is currently in progress to validate these findings.
Citation Format: Beatriz E. Adrada, Abeer H. Abdelhafez, Benjamin C. Musall, Kenneth R. Hess, Jong Bum Son, Mark D. Pagel, Ken-Pin Hwang, Rosalind P. Candelaria, Lumarie Santiago, Gary J. Whitman, Huong Le-Petross, Tanya W. Moseley, Elsa Arribas, Deanna L. Lane, Marion E. Scoggins, David A. Spak, Jessica W.T. Leung, Senthil Damodaran, Bora Lim, Vicente Valeo, Jason B White, Alastair M. Thompson, Jennifer K. Litton, Stacy L. Moulder, Jingfei Ma, Wei T. Yang, Gaiane M Rauch. Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) radiomics of tumor and peritumoral regions as potential predictors of treatment response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-02-03.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Kenneth R. Hess
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jong Bum Son
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Mark D. Pagel
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Ken-Pin Hwang
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Gary J. Whitman
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Elsa Arribas
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Deanna L. Lane
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - David A. Spak
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | - Bora Lim
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Vicente Valeo
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jason B White
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | - Jingfei Ma
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Wei T. Yang
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gaiane M Rauch
- 1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Szklaruk J, Son JB, Wei W, Bhosale P, Javadi S, Ma J. Comparison of free breathing and respiratory triggered diffusion-weighted imaging sequences for liver imaging. World J Radiol 2019; 11:134-143. [PMID: 31798795 PMCID: PMC6885723 DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v11.i11.134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2019] [Revised: 08/26/2019] [Accepted: 09/26/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has become a useful tool in the detection, characterization, and evaluation of response to treatment of many cancers, including malignant liver lesions. DWI offers higher image contrast between lesions and normal liver tissue than other sequences. DWI images acquired at two or more b-values can be used to derive an apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). DWI in the body has several technical challenges. This include ghosting artifacts, mis-registration and susceptibility artifacts. New DWI sequences have been developed to overcome some of these challenges. Our goal is to evaluate 3 new DWI sequences for liver imaging.
AIM To qualitatively and quantitatively compare 3 DWI sequences for liver imaging: free-breathing (FB), simultaneous multislice (SMS), and prospective acquisition correction (PACE).
METHODS Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed in 20 patients in this prospective study. The MR study included 3 separate DWI sequences: FB-DWI, SMS-DWI, and PACE-DWI. The image quality, mean ADC, standard deviations (SD) of ADC, and ADC histogram were compared. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare qualitative image quality. A linear mixed model was used to compare the mean ADC and the SDs of the ADC values. All tests were 2-sided and P values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS There were 56 lesions (50 malignant) evaluated in this study. The mean qualitative image quality score of PACE-DWI was 4.48. This was significantly better than that of SMS-DWI (4.22) and FB-DWI (3.15) (P < 0.05). Quantitatively, the mean ADC values from the 3 different sequences did not significantly differ for each liver lesion. FB-DWI had a markedly higher variation in the SD of the ADC values than did SMS-DWI and PACE-DWI. We found statistically significant differences in the SDs of the ADC values for FB-DWI vs PACE-DWI (P < 0.0001) and for FB-DWI vs SMS-DWI (P = 0.03). The SD of the ADC values was not statistically significant for PACE-DWI and SMS-DWI (P = 0.18). The quality of the PACE-DWI ADC histograms were considered better than the SMS-DWI and FB-DWI.
CONCLUSION Compared to FB-DWI, both PACE-DWI and SMS-DWI provide better image quality and decreased quantitative variability in the measurement of ADC values of liver lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janio Szklaruk
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States
| | - Wei Wei
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States
| | - Priya Bhosale
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States
| | - Sanaz Javadi
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Fang P, Musall BC, Son JB, Moreno AC, Hobbs BP, Carter BW, Fellman BM, Mawlawi O, Ma J, Lin SH. Multimodal Imaging of Pathologic Response to Chemoradiation in Esophageal Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 102:996-1001. [PMID: 29685377 PMCID: PMC6119639 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.02.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2017] [Revised: 02/07/2018] [Accepted: 02/20/2018] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To examine the value of early changes in quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for discriminating complete pathologic response (pCR) to chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty esophageal cancer patients treated with chemoradiation followed by surgery were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging and FDG-PET/CT scans at baseline, interim (2 weeks after chemoradiation start), and first follow-up. On the basis of pathologic findings at surgery, patients were categorized into tumor regression groups (TRG1, TRG2, and TRG3+). Distributions of summary statistics in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and FDG-PET at baseline and relative changes at interim and follow-up scans were compared between pCR/TRG1 and non-pCR/TRG2+ groups and across readers. Receiver operating characteristics were evaluated for summary measures to characterize discrimination of pCR from non-pCR. RESULTS Relative changes in tumor volume ADC (ΔADC) mean and 25th and 10th percentiles from baseline to interim were able to completely discriminate (area under the curve = 1, P < .0011) between pCR and non-pCR (thresholds = 27.7%, 29.2%, and 32.1%, respectively) and were found to have high interreader reliability (95% limits of agreement of 1.001, 0.944, and 0.940, respectively). Relative change in total lesion glycolysis (TLG) from baseline to interim was significantly different among pCR and non-pCR groups (P=.0117) and yielded an area under the curve of 0.947 (95% confidence interval 0.8505-1.043). An optimal threshold of 59% decrease in TLG provided optimal sensitivity (specificity) of 1.000 (0.867). Changes in ADC summary measures were negatively correlated with that of TLG (Spearman, -0.495, P=.027). CONCLUSIONS Quantitative volume ΔADC and TLG during treatment may serve as early imaging biomarkers for discriminating pathologic response to chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Validation of these data in larger, prospective, multicenter studies is essential.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Penny Fang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Benjamin C Musall
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Amy C Moreno
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Brian P Hobbs
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Brett W Carter
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Bryan M Fellman
- Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Osama Mawlawi
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Steven H Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Son JB, Hwang KP, Madewell JE, Bayram E, Hazle JD, Low RN, Ma J. A flexible fast spin echo triple-echo Dixon technique. Magn Reson Med 2016; 77:1049-1057. [PMID: 26982770 DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26186] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2015] [Revised: 02/08/2016] [Accepted: 02/08/2016] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop a flexible fast spin echo (FSE) triple-echo Dixon (FTED) technique. METHODS An FSE pulse sequence was modified by replacing each readout gradient with three fast-switching bipolar readout gradients with minimal interecho dead time. The corresponding three echoes were used to generate three raw images with relative phase shifts of -θ, 0, and θ between water and fat signals. A region growing-based two-point Dixon phase correction algorithm was used to joint process two separate pairs of the three raw images, yielding a final set of water-only and fat-only images. The flexible FTED technique was implemented on 1.5T and 3.0T scanners and evaluated in five subjects for fat-suppressed T2-weighted imaging and in one subject for post-contrast fat-suppressed T1-weighted imaging. RESULTS The flexible FTED technique achieved a high data acquisition efficiency, comparable to that of FSE, and was flexible in scan protocols. The joint two-point Dixon phase correction algorithm helped to ensure consistency in the processing of the two separate pairs of raw images. Reliable and uniform separation of water and fat was achieved in all of the test cases. CONCLUSION The flexible FTED technique incorporates the benefits of both FSE and Dixon imaging and provided more flexibility than the original FTED in applications such as fat-suppressed T2-weighted and T1-weighted imaging. Magn Reson Med 77:1049-1057, 2017. © 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ken-Pin Hwang
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - John E Madewell
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ersin Bayram
- Global MR Applications and Workflow, GE Healthcare Technologies, Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
| | - John D Hazle
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Russell N Low
- Sharp and Children's MRI Center and San Diego Imaging Medical Group, San Diego, California, USA
| | - Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Ma J, Son JB, Hazle JD. An improved region growing algorithm for phase correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med 2015; 76:519-29. [DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25892] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2015] [Revised: 07/09/2015] [Accepted: 07/26/2015] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Houston Texas USA
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Houston Texas USA
| | - John D. Hazle
- Department of Imaging Physics; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Houston Texas USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Yang L, Son JB, Ma J, Cheng S, Hazle J, Carter BW, Lin S. MO-F-CAMPUS-I-05: Quantitative ADC Measurement of Esophageal Cancer Before and After Chemoradiation. Med Phys 2015. [DOI: 10.1118/1.4925471] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
|
35
|
Son JB, Wright SM, Ji JX. Single-point Dixon water-fat imaging using 64-channel single-echo acquisition MRI. Concepts Magn Reson Part B Magn Reson Eng 2008; 33B:152-162. [PMID: 31543720 PMCID: PMC6753947 DOI: 10.1002/cmr.b.20120] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
This paper presents a method for high-speed water-fat imaging using Single-Echo Acquisition (SEA) with an array of 64 localized coil elements and single-point Dixon sequence. The method forms two-dimensional separate water and fat images from a single echo data. Specifically, a channel correlation and region-growing algorithm was developed to extract the phase information from the single echo data, eliminating the need for multiple data acquisition normally required for water/fat separation. Phantom studies on a 4.7 T scanner show that the method can handle large inter-channel and cross-channel phase variations, even at relative high data noise levels. Assume that the water and fat are spatially separated and they can be identified by the phase discontinuity caused by the chemical frequency shift, the new method can acquire separate water and fat images without reducing the high frame rates of the SEA imaging method. Although its capability is limited if there are large susceptibility artifacts, disconnected tissues, or pixels with mixed fat and water signals, the new method is potentially useful for dynamic imaging of small animals, where the SEA imaging can provide high imaging speed but may suffer from reduced contrast due to the strong fat signals at short repetition time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jong Bum Son
- Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
| | - Steven M Wright
- Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
| | - Jim X Ji
- Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Son JB, Ji JX, McDougall MP, Wright SM. Adaptive SENSE reconstruction for parallel imaging with massive array coils. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2007; 2004:1064-7. [PMID: 17271866 DOI: 10.1109/iembs.2004.1403347] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
This work presents an adaptive SENSE reconstruction method for parallel magnetic resonance imaging with a large number of localized coils. This method uses a Gaussian model to obtain improved coil sensitivity estimate. For image reconstruction, it dynamically selects a subset of receiver channels, in a pixel-by-pixel fashion, to improve computational efficiency and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Computer simulations and real experiments show that the proposed method reconstructs images with reduced artifacts and higher SNR than the SENSE method.
Collapse
|
37
|
Ma J, Son JB, Zhou Y, Le-Petross H, Choi H. Fast spin-echo triple-echo dixon (fTED) technique for efficientT2-weighted water and fat imaging. Magn Reson Med 2007; 58:103-109. [PMID: 17659631 DOI: 10.1002/mrm.21268] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
Previously published fast spin-echo (FSE) implementations of a Dixon method for water and fat separation all require multiple scans and thus a relatively long scan time. Further, the minimum echo spacing (esp), a time critical for FSE image quality and scan efficiency, often needs to be increased in order to bring about the required phase shift between the water and fat signals. This work proposes and implements a novel FSE triple-echo Dixon (fTED) technique that can address these limitations. In the new technique, three raw images are acquired in a single FSE scan by replacing each frequency-encoding gradient in a conventional FSE with three consecutive gradients of alternating polarity. The timing of the three gradients is adjusted by selecting an appropriate receiver bandwidth (RBW) so that the water and fat signals for the three corresponding echoes have a relative phase shift of -180 degrees , 0 degrees , and 180 degrees , respectively. A fully automated postprocessing algorithm is then used to generate separate water-only and fat-only images for each slice. The technique was implemented with and without parallel imaging. We demonstrate that the new fTED technique enables both uniform water/fat separation and fast scanning with uncompromised scan parameters, including applications such as T(2)-weighted separate water and fat imaging of the abdomen during breath-holding.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jong Bum Son
- Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
- Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
| | - Yuxiang Zhou
- Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Huong Le-Petross
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Haesun Choi
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Son JB, Ji JX. Auto-calibrated dynamic parallel MRI with phase-sensitive data. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2006; 2006:751-754. [PMID: 17945997 DOI: 10.1109/iembs.2006.260695] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
A number of MRI applications rely on dynamic phase information embedded in the acquired images. Such applications often require multiple acquisitions, leading to possibly long scan time and low temporal resolution. Previously, SENSE method has been used for phase-sensitive data to shorten acquisition time. However, SENSE can be subject to artifacts due to inaccurate coil sensitivities and low SNR. In this paper, dynamic phase data are derived from self-calibrated parallel MRI and an optimal method is used to combine phase information from multiple receiver channels. Simulation results using 4-channel prostate imaging data show that it is possible to get a factor of 3 speedup and the new method is more accurate than the SENSE method in reconstructing the phase information, thus has potential to improve phase-sensitive MRI applications such as phase contrast velocity mapping, temperature mapping for thermal therapy, and Dixon water/fat imaging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jong Bum Son
- Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Ma J, Son JB, Bankson JA, Stafford RJ, Choi H, Ragan D. A fast spin echo two-point Dixon technique and its combination with sensitivity encoding for efficient T2-weighted imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 23:977-82. [PMID: 16376180 DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2005.10.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2005] [Revised: 10/16/2005] [Accepted: 10/16/2005] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
A fast spin echo two-point Dixon (fast 2PD) technique was developed for efficient T2-weighted imaging with uniform water and fat separation. The technique acquires two interleaved fast spin echo images with water and fat in-phase and 180 degrees out-of-phase, respectively, and generates automatically separate water and fat images for each slice. The image reconstruction algorithm uses an improved and robust region-growing scheme for phase correction and achieves consistency in water and fat identification between different slices by exploiting the intrinsic correlation between the complex images from two neighboring slices. To further lower the acquisition time to that of a regular fast spin echo acquisition with a single signal average, we combined the fast 2PD technique with sensitivity encoding (SENSE). Phantom experiments show that the fast 2PD and SENSE are complementary in scan efficiency and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). In vivo data from scanning of clinical patients demonstrate that T2-weighted imaging with uniform and consistent fat separation, including breath-hold abdominal examinations, can be readily performed with the fast 2PD technique or its combination with SENSE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030-4009, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Ma J, Vu AT, Son JB, Choi H, Hazle JD. Fat-suppressed three-dimensional dual echo dixon technique for contrast agent enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 23:36-41. [PMID: 16315212 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20470] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop a fast T1-weighted, fat-suppressed three-dimensional dual echo Dixon technique and to demonstrate its use in contrast agent enhanced MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS A product fast three-dimensional gradient echo pulse sequence was modified to acquire dual echoes after each RF excitation with water and fat signals in-phase (IP) and opposed-phase (OP), respectively. An on-line reconstruction algorithm was implemented to automatically generate separate water and fat images. The signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the new technique was compared to that of the product technique in phantom. In vivo abdomen and breast images of cancer patients were acquired at 1.5 Tesla using both techniques before and after intravenous administration of gadolinium contrast agent. RESULTS In phantom, the new technique yields a close to the theoretically predicted 41% increase in SNR in comparison to the product technique without fat suppression (FS). In vivo images of the new technique show noticeably improved FS and image quality in comparison to the images acquired of the same patients using the product technique with FS. CONCLUSION The three-dimensional dual echo Dixon technique provides excellent image quality and can be used for T1-weighted, fat-suppressed imaging with contrast agent injection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jingfei Ma
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|