Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 369-378

  Tixier, Florent ^a   Le Rest, Catherine Cheze ^a   Hatt, Mathieu ^a   Albarghach, Nidal ^a   Pradier, Olivier ^a   Metges, Jean Philippe ^a,b   Corcos, Laurent ^b   Visvikis, Dimitris ^a  

^a CHU MORVAN   (France)

^b FACULTÉ DE MÉDECINE ET DES SCIENCES DE LA SANTÉ   (France)

Author keywords

18F FDG PET; Esophageal cancer; Predictive value; Response to therapy; Textural analysis

Indexed keywords

CARBOPLATIN; CISPLATIN; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; FLUOROURACIL;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; ESOPHAGUS CANCER; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; MALE; METABOLISM; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOACTIVITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; CARBOPLATIN; CISPLATIN; COMBINED MODALITY THERAPY; ESOPHAGEAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; FLUOROURACIL; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROGNOSIS; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; RADIOTHERAPY, CONFORMAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79952788113     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.110.082404     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Gebski V, Burmeister B, Smithers BM, et al. Survival benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy in oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:226-234. (Pubitemid 46291702)
2. Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, et al. MAGIC trial participants: perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:11-20.
3. Di Fabio F, Pinto C, Rojas Llimpe FL, et al. The predictive value of 18F-FDG PET early evaluation in patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma treated with chemotherapy plus cetuximab. Gastric Cancer. 2007;10:221-227. (Pubitemid 350308171)
4. 18F-FDG PET/CT for assessing response to therapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:89S-96S.
5. van Westreenen H, Westerterp M, Bossuyt P, et al. Systematic review of the staging performance of 18f-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3805-3812. (Pubitemid 41095222)
6. 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the evaluation of cancer treatment response. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:88-99.
7. Rizk N, Downey RJ, Akhurst T, et al. Preoperative 18FDG positron emission tomography standardized uptake values predict survival after esophageal adenocarcinoma resection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:1076-1081. (Pubitemid 43247692)
8. Javeri H, Xiao L, Rohren E, et al. Influence of the baseline 18FDG positron emission tomography results on survival and pathologic response in patients with gastroesophageal cancer undergoing chemoradiation. Cancer. 2009;115:624-630.
9. Rizk NP, Tang L, Adusumilli PS, et al. Predictive value of initial PET SUVmax in patients with locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:875-879.
10. Flamen P, Van Cutsem E, Lerut A, et al. Positron emission tomography for assessment of the response to induction radiochemotherapy in locally advanced oesophageal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:361-368. (Pubitemid 34704995)
11. Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Ilson D, et al. Whole body 18FDG-PET and the response of esophageal cancer to induction therapy: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:428-432. (Pubitemid 46606470)
12. 18F- fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in oesophageal cancer for prediction of pathologic response and survival after preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1385-1391.
13. Weber WA, Ott K, Becker K, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction by metabolic imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3058-3065. (Pubitemid 32565444)
14. Lordick F, Ott K, Krause BJ, et al. PET to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: the MUNICON phase II trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:797-805. (Pubitemid 47308659)
15. Ott K, Weber WA, Lordick F, et al. Metabolic imaging predicts response, survival, and recurrence in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4692-4698. (Pubitemid 46646244)
16. 18F-FDG PET quantitative parameters help in predicting the response to radioimmunotherapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:494-504.
17. Vesselle H, Schmidt RA, Pugsley JM, et al. Lung cancer proliferation correlates with 18FDG uptake by positron emission tomography. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6:3837-3844.
18. Rajendran JG, Schwartz DL, O'Sullivan J, et al. Tumour hypoxia imaging with 18F fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography in head and neck cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:5435-5441. (Pubitemid 44497258)
19. Kunkel M, Reichert TE, Benz P, et al. Overexpression of Glut-1 and increased glucose metabolism in tumours are associated with a poor prognosis in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2003;97:1015-1024. (Pubitemid 36173153)
20. Xu Y, Sonka M, McLennan G, Guo J, Hoffman EA. MDCT-based 3-D texture classification of emphysema and early smoking related lung pathologies. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25:464-475.
21. Tesar L, Shimizu A, Smutek D, Kobatake H, Shigeru N. Medical image analysis of 3D CT images based on extension of Haralick texture features. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2008;32:513-520.
22. Segal E, Sirlin CB, Ooi C, et al. Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:675-680. (Pubitemid 46897204)
23. El Naqa I, Grigsby PW, Aptea A, et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit. 2009;42:1162-1171.
24. 18F-FDG uptake as a predictor of patient outcome. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1973-1979.
25. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205-216.
26. Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Turzo A, Roux C, Visvikis D. A fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian segmentation approach for volume determination in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009;28:881-893.
27. Amadasun M, King R. Textural features corresponding to textural properties. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1989;19:1264-1274.
28. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1973;3:610-621.
29. Loh H, Leu J, Luo R. The analysis of natural textures using run length features. IEEE Trans Ind Electron. 1988;35:323-328. (Pubitemid 18639727)
30. Thibault G, Fertil B, Navarro C, et al. Texture indexes and gray level size zone matrix: application to cell nuclei classification. Pattern Recognition Inf Process. 2009;140-145.
31. Hautzel H, Müller-Gärtner HW. Early changes in fluorine-18-FDG uptake during radiotherapy. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1384-1386. (Pubitemid 27386195)
32. Erasmus JJ, Munden RF, Truong MT, et al. Preoperative chemoradiation-induced ulceration in patients with esophageal cancer: a confounding factor in tumor response assessment in integrated computed tomography-positron emission tomography imaging. J Thorac Oncol. 2006;1:478-486. (Pubitemid 47181426)
33. Gillies RJ, Anderson AR, Gatenby RA, Morse DL. The biology underlying molecular imaging in oncology: from genome to anatome and back again. Clin Radiol. 2010;65:517-521.
34. Diehn M, Nardini C, Wang DS, et al. Identification of noninvasive imaging surrogates for brain tumor gene-expression modules. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:5213-5218. (Pubitemid 351738536)
35. Strauss LG, Pan L, Koczan D, et al. Fusion of positron emission tomography (PET) and gene array data: a new approach for the correlative analysis of molecular biological and clinical data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2007;26:804-812. (Pubitemid 46842915)