Robustness of intratumour 18F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 40, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 1662-1671

  Hatt, Mathieu ^a   Tixier, Florent ^a   Cheze Le Rest, Catherine ^b   Pradier, Olivier ^c   Visvikis, Dimitris ^a  

^a Universite de Bretagne Occidentale   (France)

^b POITIERS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^c CHU MORVAN   (France)

Author keywords

FDG PET CT; Heterogeneity; Partial volume effect correction; Response to therapy prediction; Textural features; Tumour delineation

Indexed keywords

CISPLATIN; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; FLUOROURACIL; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DRUG UPTAKE; ENTROPY; ESOPHAGEAL ADENOCARCINOMA; ESOPHAGEAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; ESOPHAGUS CARCINOMA; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MALE; PARTIAL VOLUME CORRECTION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION; CARCINOMA; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; ESOPHAGUS TUMOR; EVALUATION STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; SCINTISCANNING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR VOLUME; VERY ELDERLY; DIAGNOSTIC USE; ESOPHAGEAL NEOPLASMS;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CARCINOMA; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ESOPHAGEAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84885428106     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: 16197089     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-013-2486-8     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Krause BJ, Schwarzenbock S, Souvatzoglou M. FDG PET and PET/CT. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2013;187:351-69.
2. Jarritt PH, Carson KJ, Hounsell AR, Visvikis D. The role of PET/CT scanning in radiotherapy planning. Br J Radiol. 2006;79(Spec No 1):S27-35.
3. Herrmann K, Benz MR, Krause BJ, Pomykala KL, Buck AK, Czernin J. (18)F-FDG-PET/CT in evaluating response to therapy in solid tumors: where we are and where we can go. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;55:620-32.
4. Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K, Zhang H, Simon CA, Kampalath R, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:27-38.
5. Hatt M, Visvikis D, Pradier O, Cheze-le Rest C. Baseline (18)F-FDG PET image-derived parameters for therapy response prediction in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1595-606.
6. Deron P, Mertens K, Goethals I, Rottey S, Duprez F, De Neve W, et al. Metabolic tumour volume. Prognostic value in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Nuklearmedizin. 2011;50:141-6.
7. Melton GB, Lavely WC, Jacene HA, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Wahl RL, et al. Efficacy of preoperative combined 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography for assessing primary rectal cancer response to neoadjuvant therapy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:961-9. discussion 969.
8. Hatt M, Groheux D, Martineau A, Espie M, Hindie E, Giacchetti S, et al. Comparison between 18F-FDG PET image-derived indices for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:341-9.
9. Lee HY, Hyun SH, Lee KS, Kim BT, Kim J, Shim YM, et al. Volume-based parameter of 18F-FDG PET/CT in malignant pleural mesothelioma: prediction of therapeutic response and prognostic implications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2787-94.
10. Cazaentre T, Morschhauser F, Vermandel M, Betrouni N, Prangere T, Steinling M, et al. Pre-therapy 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.
11. Basu S, Kwee TC, Gatenby R, Saboury B, Torigian DA, Alavi A. Evolving role of molecular imaging with PET in detecting and characterizing heterogeneity of cancer tissue at the primary and metastatic sites, a plausible explanation for failed attempts to cure malignant disorders. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:987-91.
12. Visvikis D, Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze Le Rest C. The age of reason for FDG PET image-derived indices. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1670-2.
13. Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, Carvalho S, van Stiphout R G, Granton P, et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:441-6.
14. Chicklore S, Goh V, Siddique M, Roy A, Marsden PK, Cook GJ. Quantifying tumour heterogeneity in 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging by texture analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:133-40.
15. Davnall F, Yip CS, Ljungqvist G, Selmi M, Ng F, Sanghera B, et al. Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging. 2012;3:573-89.
16. Cook GJ, Yip C, Siddique M, Goh V, Chicklore S, Roy A, et al. Are pretreatment 18F-FDG PET tumor textural features in non-small cell lung cancer associated with response and survival after chemoradiotherapy? J Nucl Med. 2013;54:19-26.
17. O'Sullivan F, Wolsztynski E, O'Sullivan J, Richards T, Conrad E, Eary J. A statistical modeling approach to the analysis of spatial patterns of FDG-PET uptake in human sarcoma. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2011;30:2059-71.
18. Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Hatt M, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Metges JP, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:369-78.
19. Tan S, Kligerman S, Chen W, Lu M, Kim G, Feigenberg S, et al. Spatial-temporal [(18)F]FDG-PET features for predicting pathologic response of esophageal cancer to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:1375-82.
20. El Naqa I, Grigsby P, Apte A, Kidd E, Donnelly E, Khullar D, et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit. 2009;42:1162-71.
21. Miller TR, Pinkus E, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Improved prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET using a simple visual analysis of tumor characteristics in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:192-7.
22. van Velden FH, Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, et al. Evaluation of a cumulative SUV-volume histogram method for parameterizing heterogeneous intratumoural FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1636-47.
23. Galavis PE, Hollensen C, Jallow N, Paliwal B, Jeraj R. Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol. 2010;49:1012-6.
24. Tixier F, Hatt M, Cheze Le Rest C, Le Pogam A, Corcos L, Visvikis D. Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:693-700.
25. Visvikis D, Turzo A, Gouret A, Damine P, Lamare F, Bizais Y, et al. Characterisation of SUV accuracy in FDG PET using 3-D RAMLA and the Philips Allegro PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:103.
26. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, 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;92:205-16.
27. Erdi YE, Mawlawi O, Larson SM, Imbriaco M, Yeung H, Finn R, et al. Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding. Cancer. 1997;80:2505-9.
28. Nestle U, Kremp S, Schaefer-Schuler A, Sebastian-Welsch C, Hellwig D, Rube C, et al. Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1342-8.
29. 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;28:881-93.
30. Hatt M, Cheze Le Rest C, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Visvikis D. PET functional volume delineation: a robustness and repeatability study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:663-72.
31. Hatt M, Cheze-Le Rest C, Aboagye EO, Kenny LM, Rosso L, Turkheimer FE, et al. Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine PET tumor volume measurements. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1368-76.
32. Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Descourt P, Dekker A, De Ruysscher D, Oellers M, et al. Accurate automatic delineation of heterogeneous functional volumes in positron emission tomography for oncology applications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:301-8.
33. Boussion N, Cheze Le Rest C, Hatt M, Visvikis D. Incorporation of wavelet-based denoising in iterative deconvolution for partial volume correction in whole-body PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1064-75.
34. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837-45.