TY - JOUR
T1 - Prediction of Non-Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal Cancer Patients with18F-FDG PET Radiomics Based Machine Learning Classification
AU - Beukinga, Roelof J.
AU - Poelmann, Floris B.
AU - Kats-Ugurlu, Gursah
AU - Viddeleer, Alain R.
AU - Boellaard, Ronald
AU - de Haas, Robbert J.
AU - Plukker, John Th. M.
AU - Hulshoff, Jan Binne
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
PY - 2022/5/1
Y1 - 2022/5/1
N2 - Background: Approximately 26% of esophageal cancer (EC) patients do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), emphasizing the need for pre-treatment selection. The aim of this study was to predict non-response using a radiomic model on baseline18F-FDG PET. Methods: Retrospectively, 14318F-FDG PET radiomic features were extracted from 199 EC patients (T1N1-3M0/T2–4aN0-3M0) treated between 2009 and 2019. Non-response (n = 57; 29%) was defined as Mandard Tumor Regression Grade 4–5 (n = 44; 22%) or interval progression (n = 13; 7%). Randomly, 139 patients (70%) were allocated to explore all combinations of 24 feature selection strategies and 6 classification methods towards the cross-validated average precision (AP). The predictive value of the best-performing model, i.e AP and area under the ROC curve analysis (AUC), was evaluated on an independent test subset of 60 patients (30%). Results: The best performing model had an AP (mean ± SD) of 0.47 ± 0.06 on the training subset, achieved by a support vector machine classifier trained on five principal components of relevant clinical and radiomic features. The model was externally validated with an AP of 0.66 and an AUC of 0.67. Conclusion: In the present study, the best-performing model on pre-treatment18F-FDG PET radiomics and clinical features had a small clinical benefit to identify non-responders to nCRT in EC.
AB - Background: Approximately 26% of esophageal cancer (EC) patients do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), emphasizing the need for pre-treatment selection. The aim of this study was to predict non-response using a radiomic model on baseline18F-FDG PET. Methods: Retrospectively, 14318F-FDG PET radiomic features were extracted from 199 EC patients (T1N1-3M0/T2–4aN0-3M0) treated between 2009 and 2019. Non-response (n = 57; 29%) was defined as Mandard Tumor Regression Grade 4–5 (n = 44; 22%) or interval progression (n = 13; 7%). Randomly, 139 patients (70%) were allocated to explore all combinations of 24 feature selection strategies and 6 classification methods towards the cross-validated average precision (AP). The predictive value of the best-performing model, i.e AP and area under the ROC curve analysis (AUC), was evaluated on an independent test subset of 60 patients (30%). Results: The best performing model had an AP (mean ± SD) of 0.47 ± 0.06 on the training subset, achieved by a support vector machine classifier trained on five principal components of relevant clinical and radiomic features. The model was externally validated with an AP of 0.66 and an AUC of 0.67. Conclusion: In the present study, the best-performing model on pre-treatment18F-FDG PET radiomics and clinical features had a small clinical benefit to identify non-responders to nCRT in EC.
KW - esophageal neoplasms
KW - neoadjuvant therapy
KW - positron-emission tomography
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129608620&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12051070
DO - https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12051070
M3 - Article
C2 - 35626225
SN - 2075-4418
VL - 12
JO - Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
JF - Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
IS - 5
M1 - 1070
ER -