A Machine learning model trained on dual-energy CT radiomics significantly improves immunotherapy response prediction for patients with stage IV melanoma.
melanoma
Journal
Journal for immunotherapy of cancer
ISSN: 2051-1426
Titre abrégé: J Immunother Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101620585
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
accepted:
13
10
2021
entrez:
19
11
2021
pubmed:
20
11
2021
medline:
12
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the additive value of dual-energy CT (DECT) over single-energy CT (SECT) to radiomics-based response prediction in patients with metastatic melanoma preceding immunotherapy. A total of 140 consecutive patients with melanoma (58 female, 63±16 years) for whom baseline DECT tumor load assessment revealed stage IV and who were subsequently treated with immunotherapy were included. Best response was determined using the clinical reports (81 responders: 27 complete response, 45 partial response, 9 stable disease). Individual lesion response was classified manually analogous to RECIST 1.1 through 1291 follow-up examinations on a total of 776 lesions (6.7±7.2 per patient). The patients were sorted chronologically into a study and a validation cohort (each n=70). The baseline DECT was examined using specialized tumor segmentation prototype software, and radiomic features were analyzed for response predictors. Significant features were selected using univariate statistics with Bonferroni correction and multiple logistic regression. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the best subset was computed (AUROC). For each combination (SECT/DECT and patient response/lesion response), an individual random forest classifier with 10-fold internal cross-validation was trained on the study cohort and tested on the validation cohort to confirm the predictive performance. We performed manual RECIST 1.1 response analysis on a total of 6533 lesions. Multivariate statistics selected significant features for patient response in SECT (min. brightness, R²=0.112, padj. ≤0.001) and DECT (textural coarseness, R²=0.121, padj. ≤0.001), as well as lesion response in SECT (mean absolute voxel intensity deviation, R²=0.115, padj. ≤0.001) and DECT (iodine uptake metrics, R²≥0.12, padj. ≤0.001). Applying the machine learning models to the validation cohort confirmed the additive predictive power of DECT (patient response AUROC SECT=0.5, DECT=0.75; lesion response AUROC SECT=0.61, DECT=0.85; p<0.001). The new method of DECT-specific radiomic analysis provides a significant additive value over SECT radiomics approaches for response prediction in patients with metastatic melanoma preceding immunotherapy, especially on a lesion-based level. As mixed tumor response is not uncommon in metastatic melanoma, this lends a powerful tool for clinical decision-making and may potentially be an essential step toward individualized medicine.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To assess the additive value of dual-energy CT (DECT) over single-energy CT (SECT) to radiomics-based response prediction in patients with metastatic melanoma preceding immunotherapy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A total of 140 consecutive patients with melanoma (58 female, 63±16 years) for whom baseline DECT tumor load assessment revealed stage IV and who were subsequently treated with immunotherapy were included. Best response was determined using the clinical reports (81 responders: 27 complete response, 45 partial response, 9 stable disease). Individual lesion response was classified manually analogous to RECIST 1.1 through 1291 follow-up examinations on a total of 776 lesions (6.7±7.2 per patient). The patients were sorted chronologically into a study and a validation cohort (each n=70). The baseline DECT was examined using specialized tumor segmentation prototype software, and radiomic features were analyzed for response predictors. Significant features were selected using univariate statistics with Bonferroni correction and multiple logistic regression. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the best subset was computed (AUROC). For each combination (SECT/DECT and patient response/lesion response), an individual random forest classifier with 10-fold internal cross-validation was trained on the study cohort and tested on the validation cohort to confirm the predictive performance.
RESULTS
We performed manual RECIST 1.1 response analysis on a total of 6533 lesions. Multivariate statistics selected significant features for patient response in SECT (min. brightness, R²=0.112, padj. ≤0.001) and DECT (textural coarseness, R²=0.121, padj. ≤0.001), as well as lesion response in SECT (mean absolute voxel intensity deviation, R²=0.115, padj. ≤0.001) and DECT (iodine uptake metrics, R²≥0.12, padj. ≤0.001). Applying the machine learning models to the validation cohort confirmed the additive predictive power of DECT (patient response AUROC SECT=0.5, DECT=0.75; lesion response AUROC SECT=0.61, DECT=0.85; p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
The new method of DECT-specific radiomic analysis provides a significant additive value over SECT radiomics approaches for response prediction in patients with metastatic melanoma preceding immunotherapy, especially on a lesion-based level. As mixed tumor response is not uncommon in metastatic melanoma, this lends a powerful tool for clinical decision-making and may potentially be an essential step toward individualized medicine.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34795006
pii: jitc-2021-003261
doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003261
pmc: PMC8603266
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: All authors declare no conflict of interest for this study. SF and AFC are employees of Siemens Healthcare and had no control over the data.
Références
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Radiology. 2021 Apr;299(1):109-119
pubmed: 33497314
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 May;60(5):719-35; quiz 736-8
pubmed: 19389517
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Sep;19(9):1180-1191
pubmed: 30120041
JAMA Dermatol. 2017 Feb 1;153(2):225-226
pubmed: 28002545
Oncotarget. 2017 Jan 3;8(1):523-535
pubmed: 27880938
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):e143-e152
pubmed: 28271869
Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Aug 15;26(16):4414-4425
pubmed: 32253232
Radiol Med. 2021 Oct;126(10):1296-1311
pubmed: 34213702
Nat Med. 2018 Oct;24(10):1545-1549
pubmed: 30127394
Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Sep;27(9):3488-3497
pubmed: 32472413
Radiology. 2016 Feb;278(2):563-77
pubmed: 26579733
Eur Radiol. 2019 Feb;29(2):915-923
pubmed: 30054795
Melanoma Res. 2003 Feb;13(1):45-9
pubmed: 12569284
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Sep;19(9):1138-1139
pubmed: 30120042
Surg Clin North Am. 2020 Feb;100(1):1-12
pubmed: 31753105
Eur Radiol. 2012 Jan;22(1):93-103
pubmed: 21822784
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Nov;199(5 Suppl):S3-8
pubmed: 23097165
Nat Commun. 2021 Feb 22;12(1):1214
pubmed: 33619278
Cancer Res. 2017 Nov 1;77(21):e104-e107
pubmed: 29092951
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Aug 15;23(16):4671-4679
pubmed: 28592629
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2020 Mar/Apr;44(2):223-229
pubmed: 32195800
Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 2018 Mar;22(1A):61-67
pubmed: 29628796
Sci Rep. 2019 May 15;9(1):7449
pubmed: 31092853
Dermatol Pract Concept. 2020 Jun 29;10(3):e2020033
pubmed: 32642304
Ann Oncol. 2019 Jun 1;30(6):998-1004
pubmed: 30895304
Eur J Radiol. 2019 Dec;121:108688
pubmed: 31704599
Eur Radiol. 2007 Jun;17(6):1510-7
pubmed: 17151859
J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Aug;135(8):2040-2048
pubmed: 25830652