Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach

Nature Communications - Tập 5 Số 1
Hugo J.W.L. Aerts1, Emmanuel Rios Velazquez1, Ralph T. H. Leijenaar1, Chintan Parmar1, Patrick Großmann2, Sara Carvalho1, Johan Bussink3, René Monshouwer3, Benjamin Haibe‐Kains4, D. Rietveld5, Frank Hoebers1, Michelle M. Rietbergen6, C. René Leemans6, André Dekker1, John Quackenbush7, Robert J. Gillies8, Philippe Lambin1
1Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Research Institute GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, 6229ET, The Netherlands
2Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, 02215-5450, Massachusetts, USA
3Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, PB 9101, Nijmegen, 6500HB, The Netherlands
4University Health Network and Medical Biophysics Department, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, M5G 1L7, Ontario, Canada
5Department of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, 1081 HZ, The Netherlands
6Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, 1081 HZ, The Netherlands
7Department of Biostatistics & Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, 02215-5450, Massachusetts, USA
8Department of Cancer Imaging and Metabolism, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, 33612, Florida, USA

Tóm tắt

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Kurland, B. F. et al. Promise and pitfalls of quantitative imaging in oncology clinical trials. Magn. Reson. Imaging 30, 1301–1312 (2012).

Buckler, A. J., Bresolin, L., Dunnick, N. R. & Sullivan, D. C. Group. A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology 258, 906–914 (2011).

Buckler, A. J. et al. Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: interrelated but distinct activities. Radiology 259, 875–884 (2011).

Lambin, P. et al. Predicting outcomes in radiation oncology—multifactorial decision support systems. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 10, 27–40 (2013).

Jaffe, C. C. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 3245–3251 (2006).

Burton, A. RECIST: right time to renovate? Lancet Oncol. 8, 464–465 (2007).

Birchard, K. R., Hoang, J. K., Herndon, J. E. & Patz, E. F. Early changes in tumor size in patients treated for advanced stage nonsmall cell lung cancer do not correlate with survival. Cancer 115, 581–586 (2009).

Lambin, P. et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur. J. Cancer 48, 441–446 (2012).

Kumar, V. et al. Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn. Reson. Imaging 30, 1234–1248 (2012).

Zhao, B. et al. Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans of patients with non–small cell lung cancer. Radiology 252, 263–272 (2009).

van Baardwijk, A. et al. PET-CT-based auto-contouring in non-small-cell lung cancer correlates with pathology and reduces interobserver variability in the delineation of the primary tumor and involved nodal volumes. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 68, 771–778 (2007).

Harrell, F. E. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis Springer (2001).

Compton, C. C. et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Atlas Springer (2012).

Subramanian, A. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15545–15550 (2005).

Yachida, S. et al. Distant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer. Nature 467, 1114–1117 (2010).

Gerlinger, M. et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. New Engl. J. Med. 366, 883–892 (2012).

Gerlinger, M. & Swanton, C. How Darwinian models inform therapeutic failure initiated by clonal heterogeneity in cancer medicine. Br. J. Cancer 103, 1139–1143 (2010).

Kern, S. E. Why your new cancer biomarker may never work: recurrent patterns and remarkable diversity in biomarker failures. Cancer Res. 72, 6097–6101 (2012).

Starmans, M. H. W. et al. Independent and functional validation of a multi-tumour-type proliferation signature. Br. J. Cancer 107, 508–515 (2012).

Nair, V. S. et al. Prognostic PET 18F-FDG uptake imaging features are associated with major oncogenomic alterations in patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res. 72, 3725–3734 (2012).

Diehn, M. et al. Identification of noninvasive imaging surrogates for brain tumor gene-expression modules. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 5213–5218 (2008).

Segal, E. et al. Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 675–680 (2007).

Tixier, F. 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. 52, 369–378 (2011).

Naqa El, I. et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit. 42, 1162–1171 (2009).

Ganeshan, B., Panayiotou, E., Burnand, K., Dizdarevic, S. & Miles, K. Tumour heterogeneity in non-small cell lung carcinoma assessed by CT texture analysis: a potential marker of survival. Eur. Radiol. 22, 796–802 (2011).

Ganeshan, B., Skogen, K., Pressney, I., Coutroubis, D. & Miles, K. Tumour heterogeneity in oesophageal cancer assessed by CT texture analysis: preliminary evidence of an association with tumour metabolism, stage, and survival. Clin. Radiol. 67, 157–164 (2012).

Gevaert, O. et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: identifying prognostic imaging biomarkers by leveraging public gene expression microarray data: methods and preliminary results. Radiology 264, 387–396 (2012).

Liberzon, A. et al. Molecular signatures database (MSigDB) 3.0. Bioinformatics 27, 1739–1740 (2011).