1
|
Chen S, Qin A, Yan D. Dynamic Characteristics and Predictive Capability of Tumor Voxel Dose-Response Assessed Using 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging Feedback. Front Oncol 2022; 12:876861. [PMID: 35875108 PMCID: PMC9299377 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.876861] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2022] [Accepted: 06/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Tumor voxel dose–response matrix (DRM) can be quantified using feedback from serial FDG-PET/CT imaging acquired during radiotherapy. This study investigated the dynamic characteristics and the predictive capability of DRM. Methods FDG-PET/CT images were acquired before and weekly during standard chemoradiotherapy with the treatment dose 2 Gy × 35 from 31 head and neck cancer patients. For each patient, deformable image registration was performed between the pretreatment/baseline PET/CT image and each weekly PET/CT image. Tumor voxel DRM was derived using linear regression on the logarithm of the weekly standard uptake value (SUV) ratios for each tumor voxel, such as SUV measured at a dose level normalized to the baseline SUV0. The dynamic characteristics were evaluated by comparing the DRMi estimated using a single feedback image acquired at the ith treatment week (i = 1, 2, 3, or 4) to the DRM estimated using the last feedback image for each patient. The predictive capability of the DRM estimated using 1 or 2 feedback images was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic test with respect to the treatment outcome of tumor local–regional control or failure. Results The mean ± SD of tumor voxel SUV measured at the pretreatment and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and last treatment weeks was 6.76 ± 3.69, 5.72 ± 3.43, 3.85 ± 2.22, 3.27 ± 2.25, 2.5 ± 1.79, and 2.23 ± 1.27, respectively. The deviations between the DRMi estimated using the single feedback image obtained at the ith week and the last feedback image were 0.86 ± 4.87, −0.06 ± 0.3, −0.09 ± 0.17, and −0.09 ± 0.12 for DRM1, DRM2, DRM3, and DRM4, respectively. The predictive capability of DRM3 and DRM4 was significant (p < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) was increased with the increase in treatment dose level. The DRMs constructed using the single feedback image achieved an AUC of 0.86~1. The AUC was slightly improved to 0.94~1 for the DRMs estimated using 2 feedback images. Conclusion Tumor voxel metabolic activity measured using FDG-PET/CT fluctuated noticeably during the first 2 treatment weeks and obtained a stabilized reduction rate thereafter. Tumor voxel DRM constructed using a single FDG-PET/CT feedback image after the 2nd treatment week (>20 Gy) has a good predictive capability. The predictive capability improved continuously using a later feedback image and marginally improved when two feedback images were applied.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shupeng Chen
- Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, United States
| | - An Qin
- Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, United States
| | - Di Yan
- Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, United States.,Radiation Oncology, Huaxi Hospital/School of Medicine, Chengdu, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Forouzannezhad P, Maes D, Hippe DS, Thammasorn P, Iranzad R, Han J, Duan C, Liu X, Wang S, Chaovalitwongse WA, Zeng J, Bowen SR. Multitask Learning Radiomics on Longitudinal Imaging to Predict Survival Outcomes following Risk-Adaptive Chemoradiation for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14051228. [PMID: 35267535 PMCID: PMC8909466 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14051228] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2021] [Revised: 02/23/2022] [Accepted: 02/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
(1) Background: Medical imaging provides quantitative and spatial information to evaluate treatment response in the management of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). High throughput extraction of radiomic features on these images can potentially phenotype tumors non-invasively and support risk stratification based on survival outcome prediction. The prognostic value of radiomics from different imaging modalities and time points prior to and during chemoradiation therapy of NSCLC, relative to conventional imaging biomarker or delta radiomics models, remains uncharacterized. We investigated the utility of multitask learning of multi-time point radiomic features, as opposed to single-task learning, for improving survival outcome prediction relative to conventional clinical imaging feature model benchmarks. (2) Methods: Survival outcomes were prospectively collected for 45 patients with unresectable NSCLC enrolled on the FLARE-RT phase II trial of risk-adaptive chemoradiation and optional consolidation PD-L1 checkpoint blockade (NCT02773238). FDG-PET, CT, and perfusion SPECT imaging pretreatment and week 3 mid-treatment was performed and 110 IBSI-compliant pyradiomics shape-/intensity-/texture-based features from the metabolic tumor volume were extracted. Outcome modeling consisted of a fused Laplacian sparse group LASSO with component-wise gradient boosting survival regression in a multitask learning framework. Testing performance under stratified 10-fold cross-validation was evaluated for multitask learning radiomics of different imaging modalities and time points. Multitask learning models were benchmarked against conventional clinical imaging and delta radiomics models and evaluated with the concordance index (c-index) and index of prediction accuracy (IPA). (3) Results: FDG-PET radiomics had higher prognostic value for overall survival in test folds (c-index 0.71 [0.67, 0.75]) than CT radiomics (c-index 0.64 [0.60, 0.71]) or perfusion SPECT radiomics (c-index 0.60 [0.57, 0.63]). Multitask learning of pre-/mid-treatment FDG-PET radiomics (c-index 0.71 [0.67, 0.75]) outperformed benchmark clinical imaging (c-index 0.65 [0.59, 0.71]) and FDG-PET delta radiomics (c-index 0.52 [0.48, 0.58]) models. Similarly, the IPA for multitask learning FDG-PET radiomics (30%) was higher than clinical imaging (26%) and delta radiomics (15%) models. Radiomics models performed consistently under different voxel resampling conditions. (4) Conclusion: Multitask learning radiomics for outcome modeling provides a clinical decision support platform that leverages longitudinal imaging information. This framework can reveal the relative importance of different imaging modalities and time points when designing risk-adaptive cancer treatment strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Parisa Forouzannezhad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; (P.F.); (D.M.); (J.Z.)
| | - Dominic Maes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; (P.F.); (D.M.); (J.Z.)
| | - Daniel S. Hippe
- Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, USA;
| | - Phawis Thammasorn
- Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA; (P.T.); (R.I.); (X.L.); (W.A.C.)
| | - Reza Iranzad
- Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA; (P.T.); (R.I.); (X.L.); (W.A.C.)
| | - Jie Han
- Department of Industrial, Manufacturing, and System Engineering, University of Texas, Arlington, TX 76019, USA; (J.H.); (S.W.)
| | - Chunyan Duan
- Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China;
| | - Xiao Liu
- Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA; (P.T.); (R.I.); (X.L.); (W.A.C.)
| | - Shouyi Wang
- Department of Industrial, Manufacturing, and System Engineering, University of Texas, Arlington, TX 76019, USA; (J.H.); (S.W.)
| | - W. Art Chaovalitwongse
- Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA; (P.T.); (R.I.); (X.L.); (W.A.C.)
| | - Jing Zeng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; (P.F.); (D.M.); (J.Z.)
| | - Stephen R. Bowen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; (P.F.); (D.M.); (J.Z.)
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Iranzad R, Liu X, Chaovalitwongse WA, Hippe D, Wang S, Han J, Thammasorn P, Duan C, Zeng J, Bowen S. Gradient Boosted Trees for Spatial Data and Its Application to Medical Imaging Data. IISE TRANSACTIONS ON HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 2021; 12:165-179. [PMID: 36311209 PMCID: PMC9615557 DOI: 10.1080/24725579.2021.1995536] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
Boosting Trees are one of the most successful statistical learning approaches that involve sequentially growing an ensemble of simple regression trees ("weak learners"). This paper proposes a gradient Boosted Trees algorithm for Spatial Data (Boost-S) with covariate information. Boost-S integrates the spatial correlation into the classical framework of eXtreme Gradient Boosting. Each tree is constructed by solving a regularized optimization problem, where the objective function takes into account the underlying spatial correlation and involves two penalty terms on tree complexity. A computationally-efficient greedy heuristic algorithm is proposed to obtain an ensemble of trees. The proposed Boost-S is applied to the spatially-correlated FDG-PET (fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography) imaging data collected from clinical trials of cancer chemoradiotherapy. Our numerical investigations successfully demonstrate the advantages of the proposed Boost-S over existing approaches for this particular application.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reza Iranzad
- Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas
| | - Xiao Liu
- Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas
| | | | - Daniel Hippe
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington
| | - Shouyi Wang
- Department of Industrial, Manufacturing & Systems Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington
| | - Jie Han
- Department of Industrial, Manufacturing & Systems Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington
| | | | - Chunyan Duan
- Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tongji University
| | - Jing Zeng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington
| | - Stephen Bowen
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Horn KP, Thomas HMT, Vesselle HJ, Kinahan PE, Miyaoka RS, Rengan R, Zeng J, Bowen SR. Reliability of Quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging Biomarkers for Classifying Early Response to Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2021; 46:861-871. [PMID: 34172602 PMCID: PMC8490284 DOI: 10.1097/rlu.0000000000003774] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT We evaluated the reliability of 18F-FDG PET imaging biomarkers to classify early response status across observers, scanners, and reconstruction algorithms in support of biologically adaptive radiation therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Thirty-one patients with unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer were prospectively enrolled on a phase 2 trial (NCT02773238) and underwent 18F-FDG PET on GE Discovery STE (DSTE) or GE Discovery MI (DMI) PET/CT systems at baseline and during the third week external beam radiation therapy regimens. All PET scans were reconstructed using OSEM; GE-DMI scans were also reconstructed with BSREM-TOF (block sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm incorporating time of flight). Primary tumors were contoured by 3 observers using semiautomatic gradient-based segmentation. SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, MTV (metabolic tumor volume), and total lesion glycolysis were correlated with midtherapy multidisciplinary clinical response assessment. Dice similarity of contours and response classification areas under the curve were evaluated across observers, scanners, and reconstruction algorithms. LASSO logistic regression models were trained on DSTE PET patient data and independently tested on DMI PET patient data. RESULTS Interobserver variability of PET contours was low for both OSEM and BSREM-TOF reconstructions; intraobserver variability between reconstructions was slightly higher. ΔSUVpeak was the most robust response predictor across observers and image reconstructions. LASSO models consistently selected ΔSUVpeak and ΔMTV as response predictors. Response classification models achieved high cross-validated performance on the DSTE cohort and more variable testing performance on the DMI cohort. CONCLUSIONS The variability FDG PET lesion contours and imaging biomarkers was relatively low across observers, scanners, and reconstructions. Objective midtreatment PET response assessment may lead to improved precision of biologically adaptive radiation therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin P. Horn
- Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Hannah M. T. Thomas
- Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Hubert J. Vesselle
- Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Paul E. Kinahan
- Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Robert S. Miyaoka
- Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Ramesh Rengan
- Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Jing Zeng
- Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Stephen R. Bowen
- Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
- Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lapa C, Nestle U, Albert NL, Baues C, Beer A, Buck A, Budach V, Bütof R, Combs SE, Derlin T, Eiber M, Fendler WP, Furth C, Gani C, Gkika E, Grosu AL, Henkenberens C, Ilhan H, Löck S, Marnitz-Schulze S, Miederer M, Mix M, Nicolay NH, Niyazi M, Pöttgen C, Rödel CM, Schatka I, Schwarzenboeck SM, Todica AS, Weber W, Wegen S, Wiegel T, Zamboglou C, Zips D, Zöphel K, Zschaeck S, Thorwarth D, Troost EGC. Value of PET imaging for radiation therapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2021; 197:1-23. [PMID: 34259912 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-021-01812-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2021] [Accepted: 06/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
This comprehensive review written by experts in their field gives an overview on the current status of incorporating positron emission tomography (PET) into radiation treatment planning. Moreover, it highlights ongoing studies for treatment individualisation and per-treatment tumour response monitoring for various primary tumours. Novel tracers and image analysis methods are discussed. The authors believe this contribution to be of crucial value for experts in the field as well as for policy makers deciding on the reimbursement of this powerful imaging modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constantin Lapa
- Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Ursula Nestle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kliniken Maria Hilf, Mönchengladbach, Germany
| | - Nathalie L Albert
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Baues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Ambros Beer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Andreas Buck
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Volker Budach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany
| | - Rebecca Bütof
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Stephanie E Combs
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Thorsten Derlin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Matthias Eiber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang P Fendler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Christian Furth
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Cihan Gani
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Eleni Gkika
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Anca-L Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Christoph Henkenberens
- Department of Radiotherapy and Special Oncology, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany
| | - Harun Ilhan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Simone Marnitz-Schulze
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Matthias Miederer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Michael Mix
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Nils H Nicolay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Pöttgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, West German Cancer Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Claus M Rödel
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Imke Schatka
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Andrei S Todica
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Weber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Simone Wegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Zips
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Klaus Zöphel
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Chemnitz gGmbH, Chemnitz, Germany
| | - Sebastian Zschaeck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Daniela Thorwarth
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Lapa C, Nestle U, Albert NL, Baues C, Beer A, Buck A, Budach V, Bütof R, Combs SE, Derlin T, Eiber M, Fendler WP, Furth C, Gani C, Gkika E, Grosu AL, Henkenberens C, Ilhan H, Löck S, Marnitz-Schulze S, Miederer M, Mix M, Nicolay NH, Niyazi M, Pöttgen C, Rödel CM, Schatka I, Schwarzenboeck SM, Todica AS, Weber W, Wegen S, Wiegel T, Zamboglou C, Zips D, Zöphel K, Zschaeck S, Thorwarth D, Troost EGC. Value of PET imaging for radiation therapy. Nuklearmedizin 2021; 60:326-343. [PMID: 34261141 DOI: 10.1055/a-1525-7029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
This comprehensive review written by experts in their field gives an overview on the current status of incorporating positron emission tomography (PET) into radiation treatment planning. Moreover, it highlights ongoing studies for treatment individualisation and per-treatment tumour response monitoring for various primary tumours. Novel tracers and image analysis methods are discussed. The authors believe this contribution to be of crucial value for experts in the field as well as for policy makers deciding on the reimbursement of this powerful imaging modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constantin Lapa
- Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Ursula Nestle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Kliniken Maria Hilf, Mönchengladbach, Germany
| | - Nathalie L Albert
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Baues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Ambros Beer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Andreas Buck
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Volker Budach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany
| | - Rebecca Bütof
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Stephanie E Combs
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Thorsten Derlin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Germany
| | - Matthias Eiber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang P Fendler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Christian Furth
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Cihan Gani
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Eleni Gkika
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Anca L Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | | | - Harun Ilhan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Simone Marnitz-Schulze
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Matthias Miederer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Michael Mix
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Nils H Nicolay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Pöttgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, West German Cancer Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Claus M Rödel
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Imke Schatka
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Andrei S Todica
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Weber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Simone Wegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Zips
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Klaus Zöphel
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Chemnitz gGmbH, Chemnitz, Germany
| | - Sebastian Zschaeck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Daniela Thorwarth
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Skaarup M, Lundemann MJ, Darkner S, Jørgensen M, Marner L, Mirkovic D, Grosshans D, Peeler C, Mohan R, Vogelius IR, Appelt A. A framework for voxel-based assessment of biological effect after proton radiotherapy in pediatric brain cancer patients using multi-modal imaging. Med Phys 2021; 48:4110-4121. [PMID: 34021597 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14989] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2020] [Revised: 04/19/2021] [Accepted: 05/13/2021] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The exact dependence of biological effect on dose and linear energy transfer (LET) in human tissue when delivering proton therapy is unknown. In this study, we propose a framework for measuring this dependency using multi-modal image-based assays with deformable registrations within imaging sessions and across time. MATERIALS AND METHODS 3T MRI scans were prospectively collected from 6 pediatric brain cancer patients before they underwent proton therapy treatment, and every 3 months for a year after treatment. Scans included T1-weighted with contrast enhancement (T1), T2-FLAIR (T2) and fractional anisotropy (FA) images. In addition, the planning CT, dose distributions and Monte Carlo-calculated LET distributions were collected. A multi-modal deformable image registration framework was used to create a dataset of dose, LET and imaging intensities at baseline and follow-up on a voxel-by-voxel basis. We modelled the biological effect of dose and LET from proton therapy using imaging changes over time as a surrogate for biological effect. We investigated various models to show the feasibility of the framework to model imaging changes. To account for interpatient and intrapatient variations, we used a nested generalized linear mixed regression model. The models were applied to predict imaging changes over time as a function of dose and LET for each modality. RESULTS Using the nested models to predict imaging changes, we saw a decrease in the FA signal as a function of dose; however, the signal increased with increasing LET. Similarly, we saw an increase in T2 signal as a function of dose, but a decrease in signal with LET. We saw no changes in T1 voxel values as a function of either dose or LET. CONCLUSIONS The imaging changes could successfully model biological effect as a function of dose and LET using our proposed framework. Due to the low number of patients, the imaging changes observed for FA and T2 scans were not marked enough to draw any firm conclusions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mikkel Skaarup
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Faculty of Science, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Sune Darkner
- Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Lisbeth Marner
- Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Dragan Mirkovic
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Christopher Peeler
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Radhe Mohan
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ivan Richter Vogelius
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Faculty of Health and Medical Science, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Ane Appelt
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds and Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Chen S, Yan D, Qin A, Maniawski P, Krauss DJ, Wilson GD. Effect of uncertainties in quantitative 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging feedback for intratumoral dose-response assessment and dose painting by number. Med Phys 2020; 47:5681-5692. [PMID: 32966627 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14482] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2020] [Revised: 08/09/2020] [Accepted: 08/18/2020] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Intratumoral dose response can be detected using serial fluoro-2-deoxyglucose-(FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) imaging feedback during treatment and used to guide adaptive dose painting by number (DPbN). However, to reliably implement this technique, the effect of uncertainties in quantitative PET/CT imaging feedback on tumor voxel dose-response assessment and DPbN needs to be determined and reduced. METHODS Three major uncertainties, induced by (a) PET imaging partial volume effect (PVE) and (b) tumor deformable image registration (DIR), and (c) variation of the time interval between FDG injection and PET image acquisition (TI), were determined using serial FDG-PET/CT images acquired during chemoradiotherapy of 18 head and neck cancer patients. PET imaging PVE was simulated using the discrepancy between with and without iterative deconvolution-based PVE corrections. Effect of tumor DIR uncertainty was simulated using the discrepancy between two DIR algorithms, including one with and one without soft-tissue mechanical correction for the voxel displacement. The effect of TI variation was simulated using linear interpolation on the dual-point PET/CT images. Tumor voxel pretreatment metabolic activity (SUV0 ) and dose-response matrix (DRM) discrepancies induced by each of the three uncertainties were quantified, respectively. Adverse effects of tumor voxel SUV0 and DRM discrepancies on tumor control probability (TCP) in DPbN were assessed. RESULTS Partial volume effect and TI variations of 10 mins induced a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of tumor voxel SUV0 discrepancies to be -0.7% ± 9.2% and 0% ± 4.8%, respectively. Tumor voxel DRM discrepancies induced by PVE, tumor DIR discrepancy, and TI variations were 0.6% ± 8.9%, 1.7% ± 9.1%, and 0% ± 7%, respectively. Partial volume effect induced SUV0 and DRM discrepancies correlated significantly with the tumor shape and FDG uptake heterogeneity. Tumor DIR uncertainty-induced DRM discrepancy correlated significantly with the tumor volume and shrinkage during treatment. Among the three uncertainties, PVE dominated the adverse effects on the TCP, with a mean ± SD of TCP reduction to be 12.7% ± 9.8% for all tumors if no compensation was applied for. CONCLUSIONS Effect of uncertainties in quantitative FDG-PET/CT imaging feedback on intratumoral dose-response quantification was not negligible. These uncertainties primarily caused by PVE and tumor DIR were highly dependent on individual tumor shape, volume, shrinkage during treatment, and pretreatment SUV heterogeneity, which can be managed individually. The adverse effects of these uncertainties could be minimized by using proper PVE corrections and DIR methods and compensated for in the clinical implementation of DPbN.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shupeng Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, 48073, USA.,Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA
| | - Di Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, 48073, USA
| | - An Qin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, 48073, USA
| | - Piotr Maniawski
- Advanced Molecular Imaging, Philips, Cleveland, OH, 44143, USA
| | - Daniel J Krauss
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, 48073, USA
| | - George D Wilson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, 48073, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Duan C, Chaovalitwongse WA, Bai F, Hippe DS, Wang S, Thammasorn P, Pierce LA, Liu X, You J, Miyaoka RS, Vesselle HJ, Kinahan PE, Rengan R, Zeng J, Bowen SR. Sensitivity analysis of FDG PET tumor voxel cluster radiomics and dosimetry for predicting mid-chemoradiation regional response of locally advanced lung cancer. Phys Med Biol 2020; 65:205007. [PMID: 33027064 PMCID: PMC7593986 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abb0c7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
We investigated the sensitivity of regional tumor response prediction to variability in voxel clustering techniques, imaging features, and machine learning algorithms in 25 patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) enrolled on the FLARE-RT clinical trial. Metabolic tumor volumes (MTV) from pre-chemoradiation (PETpre) and mid-chemoradiation fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG PET) images (PETmid) were subdivided into K-means or hierarchical voxel clusters by standardized uptake values (SUV) and 3D-positions. MTV cluster separability was evaluated by CH index, and morphologic changes were captured by Dice similarity and centroid Euclidean distance. PETpre conventional features included SUVmean, MTV/MTV cluster size, and mean radiation dose. PETpre radiomics consisted of 41 intensity histogram and 3D texture features (PET Oncology Radiomics Test Suite) extracted from MTV or MTV clusters. Machine learning models (multiple linear regression, support vector regression, logistic regression, support vector machines) of conventional features or radiomic features were constructed to predict PETmid response. Leave-one-out-cross-validated root-mean-squared-error (RMSE) for continuous response regression (ΔSUVmean) and area-under-receiver-operating-characteristic-curve (AUC) for binary response classification were calculated. K-means MTV 2-clusters (MTVhi, MTVlo) achieved maximum CH index separability (Friedman p < 0.001). Between PETpre and PETmid, MTV cluster pairs overlapped (Dice 0.70-0.87) and migrated 0.6-1.1 cm. PETmid ΔSUVmean response prediction was superior in MTV and MTVlo (RMSE = 0.17-0.21) compared to MTVhi (RMSE = 0.42-0.52, Friedman p < 0.001). PETmid ΔSUVmean response class prediction performance trended higher in MTVlo (AUC = 0.83-0.88) compared to MTVhi (AUC = 0.44-0.58, Friedman p = 0.052). Models were more sensitive to MTV/MTV cluster regions (Friedman p = 0.026) than feature sets/algorithms (Wilcoxon signed-rank p = 0.36). Top-ranked radiomic features included GLZSM-LZHGE (large-zone-high-SUV), GTSDM-CP (cluster-prominence), GTSDM-CS (cluster-shade) and NGTDM-CNT (contrast). Top-ranked features were consistent between MTVhi and MTVlo cluster pairs but varied between MTVhi-MTVlo clusters, reflecting distinct regional radiomic phenotypes. Variability in tumor voxel cluster response prediction can inform robust radiomic target definition for risk-adaptive chemoradiation in patients with LA-NSCLC. FLARE-RT trial: NCT02773238.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunyan Duan
- Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tongji University School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai China
- Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas College of Engineering, Fayetteville AR
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle WA
| | - W. Art Chaovalitwongse
- Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas College of Engineering, Fayetteville AR
| | - Fangyun Bai
- Department of Management Science and Engineering, Tongji University School of Economics and Management, Shanghai China
- Department of Industrial, Manufacturing, & Systems Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington College of Engineering, Arlington, TX
| | - Daniel S. Hippe
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle WA
| | - Shouyi Wang
- Department of Industrial, Manufacturing, & Systems Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington College of Engineering, Arlington, TX
| | - Phawis Thammasorn
- Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas College of Engineering, Fayetteville AR
| | - Larry A. Pierce
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle WA
| | - Xiao Liu
- Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas College of Engineering, Fayetteville AR
| | - Jianxin You
- Department of Management Science and Engineering, Tongji University School of Economics and Management, Shanghai China
| | - Robert S. Miyaoka
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle WA
| | - Hubert J. Vesselle
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle WA
| | - Paul E. Kinahan
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle WA
| | - Ramesh Rengan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle WA
| | - Jing Zeng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle WA
| | - Stephen R. Bowen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle WA
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle WA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Yan D, Chen S, Krauss DJ, Deraniyagala R, Chen P, Ye H, Wilson G. Inter/intra-tumoral dose response variations assessed using FDG-PET/CT feedback images: Impact on tumor control and treatment dose prescription. Radiother Oncol 2020; 154:235-242. [PMID: 33035624 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2020] [Revised: 09/23/2020] [Accepted: 09/27/2020] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To quantify inter/intra-tumoral variations of baseline metabolic activity and dose response. To evaluate their impact on tumor control and treatment dose prescription strategies. METHODS AND MATERIALS Tumor voxel baseline metabolic activity, SUV0, and dose response matrix, DRM, quantified using the pre-treatment and weekly FDG-PET/CT imaging feedback for each of 34 HNSCC patients (25 HPV+ and 9 HVP-) were evaluated. Inter/intra-tumoral variations of tumor voxel (SUV0, DRM) for each of the HPV- and HPV+ tumor groups were quantified and used to evaluate the variations of individual tumor control probabilities and the efficiency of uniform vs non-uniform treatment dose prescription strategies. RESULTS Tumor voxel dose response variation of all tumor voxels assessed using FDG-PET/CT imaging feedback had the mean(CV) = 0.47(47%), which was consistent with those of previously published in vitro tumor clonogenic assay. The HPV- tumors had the mean(CV) dose response, 0.53(49%), significantly larger than those of the HPV+ tumors, 0.45(43%). However, their baseline SUVs were opposite, 6.5(56%) vs 7.7(65%). Comparing to the inter-tumoral variations, both HPV-/+ tumor groups showed larger intra-tumoral variations, (53%, 58%) vs (20%, 31%) for the baseline SUV and (38%, 37%) vs (31%, 21%) for the dose response. Due to the large dose response variations, treatment dose to control the tumor voxels has very broad range with CV of TCD50 = 97% for the HPV- and 67% for the HPV+ tumor group respectively. As a consequence, heterogeneous prescription dose could potentially reduce the treatment integral dose for 92% of the HPV+ tumors and 78% of the HPV- tumors. CONCLUSIONS The study demonstrates that tumor dose response assessed using FDG-PET/CT feedback images had a similar distribution to those assessed conventionally using in vitro tumor clonogenic assay. Inter-tumoral dose response variation seems larger for HPV- tumors, but intra-tumoral dose response variations are similar for both HPV groups. These variations cause very large variation on the individual tumor control probability and limit the efficacy of dose escalation and de-escalation in conventional clinical practice. On the other hand, heterogeneous dose prescription guided by metabolic imaging feedback has a potential advantage in radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Di Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, USA.
| | - Shupeng Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, USA
| | - Daniel J Krauss
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, USA
| | - Rohan Deraniyagala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, USA
| | - Peter Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, USA
| | - Hong Ye
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, USA
| | - George Wilson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, USA
| |
Collapse
|