Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach

Hugo J W L Aerts, Emmanuel Rios Velazquez, Ralph T H Leijenaar, Chintan Parmar, Patrick Grossmann, Sara Carvalho, Johan Bussink, René Monshouwer, Benjamin Haibe-Kains, Derek Rietveld, Frank Hoebers, Michelle M Rietbergen, C René Leemans, Andre Dekker, John Quackenbush, Robert J Gillies, Philippe Lambin, Hugo J W L Aerts, Emmanuel Rios Velazquez, Ralph T H Leijenaar, Chintan Parmar, Patrick Grossmann, Sara Carvalho, Johan Bussink, René Monshouwer, Benjamin Haibe-Kains, Derek Rietveld, Frank Hoebers, Michelle M Rietbergen, C René Leemans, Andre Dekker, John Quackenbush, Robert J Gillies, Philippe Lambin

Abstract

Human cancers exhibit strong phenotypic differences that can be visualized noninvasively by medical imaging. Radiomics refers to the comprehensive quantification of tumour phenotypes by applying a large number of quantitative image features. Here we present a radiomic analysis of 440 features quantifying tumour image intensity, shape and texture, which are extracted from computed tomography data of 1,019 patients with lung or head-and-neck cancer. We find that a large number of radiomic features have prognostic power in independent data sets of lung and head-and-neck cancer patients, many of which were not identified as significant before. Radiogenomics analysis reveals that a prognostic radiomic signature, capturing intratumour heterogeneity, is associated with underlying gene-expression patterns. These data suggest that radiomics identifies a general prognostic phenotype existing in both lung and head-and-neck cancer. This may have a clinical impact as imaging is routinely used in clinical practice, providing an unprecedented opportunity to improve decision-support in cancer treatment at low cost.

Figures

Figure 1. Extracting radiomics data from images.
Figure 1. Extracting radiomics data from images.
(a) Tumours are different. Example computed tomography (CT) images of lung cancer patients. CT images with tumour contours left, three-dimensional visualizations right. Please note strong phenotypic differences that can be captured with routine CT imaging, such as intratumour heterogeneity and tumour shape. (b) Strategy for extracting radiomics data from images. (I) Experienced physicians contour the tumour areas on all CT slices. (II) Features are extracted from within the defined tumour contours on the CT images, quantifying tumour intensity, shape, texture and wavelet texture. (III) For the analysis the radiomics features are compared with clinical data and gene-expression data.
Figure 2. Analysis workflow.
Figure 2. Analysis workflow.
The defined radiomic features algorithms were applied to seven different data sets. Two data sets were used to calculate the feature stability ranks, RIDER test/retest and multiple delineation respectively (both orange). The Lung1 data set, containing data of 422 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, was used as training data set. Lung2 (n=225), H&N1 (n=136) and H&N2 (n=95) were used as validation data sets. The Lung3 data set (n=89) was used for association of the radiomic signature with gene expression profiles. For the multivariate analysis, only one fixed four-feature radiomic signature was tested in the validation data sets.
Figure 3. Radiomics heat map.
Figure 3. Radiomics heat map.
(a) Unsupervised clustering of lung cancer patients (Lung1 set, n=422) on the y axis and radiomic feature expression (n=440) on the x axis, revealed clusters of patients with similar radiomic expression patterns. (b) Clinical patient parameters for showing significant association of the radiomic expression patterns with primary tumour stage (T-stage; P<1 × 10−20, χ2 test), overall stage (P=3.4 × 10−3, χ2 test) and histology (P=0.019, χ2 test). (c) Correspondence of radiomic feature groups with the clustered expression patterns.
Figure 4. Prognostic performance and gene-expression association…
Figure 4. Prognostic performance and gene-expression association of the radiomics signature.
(a) Radiomic signature performance. Kaplan–Meier curves demonstrating performance of the radiomic signature on the lung cancer data sets (left) and the head-and-neck cancer data sets (right). The signature was built on the Lung1 data (n=422). The signature had a good performance in the Lung2 (CI=0.65, P=2.91 × 10−09, Wilcoxon test, n=225), and a high performance in H&N1 (CI=0.69, P=7.99 × 10−07, Wilcoxon test, n=136) and H&N2 (CI=0.69, P=3.53 × 10−06, Wilcoxon test, n=95) validation data sets. (b) Association of radiomic signature features and gene expression using gene-set enrichment analysis (GSEA) in the Lung3 data set (n=89). Gene sets that have been significantly enriched (FDR=20%) for at least one of the four radiomic features are indicated with an asterisk. The corresponding normalized enrichment scores (NES), GSEA’s primary statistic, for all radiomic signature features is displayed in a heat map, where light blue means low and dark blue means high NES.

References

    1. Kurland B. F. et al.. Promise and pitfalls of quantitative imaging in oncology clinical trials. Magn. Reson. Imaging 30, 1301–1312 (2012).
    1. 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).
    1. Buckler A. J. et al.. Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: interrelated but distinct activities. Radiology 259, 875–884 (2011).
    1. Lambin P. et al.. Predicting outcomes in radiation oncology—multifactorial decision support systems. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 10, 27–40 (2013).
    1. Jaffe C. C. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 3245–3251 (2006).
    1. Burton A. RECIST: right time to renovate? Lancet Oncol. 8, 464–465 (2007).
    1. 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).
    1. Lambin P. et al.. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur. J. Cancer 48, 441–446 (2012).
    1. Kumar V. et al.. Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn. Reson. Imaging 30, 1234–1248 (2012).
    1. 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).
    1. 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).
    1. Harrell F. E. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis Springer (2001).
    1. Compton C. C. et al.. AJCC Cancer Staging Atlas Springer (2012).
    1. 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).
    1. Yachida S. et al.. Distant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer. Nature 467, 1114–1117 (2010).
    1. Gerlinger M. et al.. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. New Engl. J. Med. 366, 883–892 (2012).
    1. Gerlinger M. & Swanton C. How Darwinian models inform therapeutic failure initiated by clonal heterogeneity in cancer medicine. Br. J. Cancer 103, 1139–1143 (2010).
    1. 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).
    1. Starmans M. H. W. et al.. Independent and functional validation of a multi-tumour-type proliferation signature. Br. J. Cancer 107, 508–515 (2012).
    1. 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).
    1. Diehn M. et al.. Identification of noninvasive imaging surrogates for brain tumor gene-expression modules. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 5213–5218 (2008).
    1. Segal E. et al.. Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 675–680 (2007).
    1. 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).
    1. Naqa El I. et al.. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit. 42, 1162–1171 (2009).
    1. 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).
    1. 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).
    1. 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).
    1. Liberzon A. et al.. Molecular signatures database (MSigDB) 3.0. Bioinformatics 27, 1739–1740 (2011).

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe