CT radiomic features of photodynamic priming in clinical pancreatic adenocarcinoma treatment

Phuong Vincent, Matthew E Maeder, Brady Hunt, Bryan Linn, Tiffany Mangels-Dick, Tayyaba Hasan, Kenneth K Wang, Brian W Pogue, Phuong Vincent, Matthew E Maeder, Brady Hunt, Bryan Linn, Tiffany Mangels-Dick, Tayyaba Hasan, Kenneth K Wang, Brian W Pogue

Abstract

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) offers localized focal ablation in unresectable pancreatic tumors while tissues surrounding the treatment volume experience a lower light dose, termed photodynamic priming (PDP). While PDP does not cause tissue damage, it has been demonstrated to promote vascular permeability, improve drug delivery, alleviate tumor cell density, and reduce desmoplasia and the resultant internal pressure in pre-clinical evaluation. Preclinical data supports PDP as a neoadjuvant therapy beneficial to subsequent chemotherapy or immunotherapy, yet it is challenging to quantify PDP effects in clinical treatment without additional imaging and testing. This study investigated the potential of radiomic analysis using CT scans acquired before and after PDT to identify areas experiencing PDT-induced necrosis as well as quantify PDP effects in the surrounding tissues. A total of 235 CT tumor slices from seven patients undergoing PDT for pancreatic tumors were examined. Radiomic features assessed included intensity metrics (CT number in Hounsfield Units) and texture analysis using several gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) parameters. Pre-treatment scans of tumor areas that resulted in PDT-induced necrosis showed statistically significant differences in intensity and texture-based features that could be used to predict the regions that did respond (paired t-test, response versus no response,p < 0.001). Evaluation of PDP effects on the surrounding tissues also demonstrated statistically significant differences, in tumor mean value, standard deviation, and GLCM parameters of contrast, dissimilarity and homogeneity (t-test, pre versus post,p < 0.001). Using leave-one-out cross validation, six intensity and texture-based features were combined into a support-vector machine model which demonstrated reliable prediction of treatment effects for six out of seven patients (ROC curve, AUC = 0.93). This study provides pilot evidence that texture features extracted from CT scans could be utilized as an effective clinical diagnostic prediction and assessment of PDT and PDP effects in pancreatic tumors. (clinical trial NCT03033225).

Keywords: CT texture analysis; pancreatic cancer; photodynamic therapy; radiomics.

Creative Commons Attribution license.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Overview of texture analysis in assessment of photodynamic therapy treatment on PDAC patients. Each patient received a pre-treatment and a post-treatment CT scan. Pancreatic tumor segmentation was performed, and texture analysis was carried out to extract underlying features that showed significant differences after the treatment.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Overview of PDT-induced changes observed between pre- and post-treatment CT scans. (A) Tumor size measured from 3D segmentation of tumors shows no significant change (paired t-test, p-value = 0.36). (B) All patients show a reduction in mean tumor CT number, indicating the tumor density has decreased after PDT treatment (paired t-test, p-value = 0.01). (C) Six out of seven patients show a reduction in standard deviation of tumor CT number, suggesting that the intratumor variation has decreased after treatment (paired t-test, p-value = 0.04). (D) Range of CT number is decreased for five out of seven patients which indicates the reduction of intratumor variation after PD (paired t-test, p-value = 0.47).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Treatment-induced necrosis areas could be predicted by texture analysis in the Pre-Tx scan. (A) Visualization of tumor in Post-Tx (top row) and Pre-Tx (bottom row) CT scans. Observable necrosis area (PDT) in pink and remaining tumor region (PDP) in yellow are delineated in Post-Tx scans, which were then mapped onto Pre-Tx scans for texture analysis. GLCM Contrast feature for both regions in the Pre-Tx scans is illustrated to show that necrosis occurred at the area with lower contrast. (B) Other first-order texture features that are found to be statistically significant when comparing the PDT and the PDP regions in Pre-Tx scans (n = 40 tumor slices).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Percentage of changes after light treatment between pre-treatment and post-treatment scans in the PDP regions of tumors, as compared to the normal liver and spleen values. For each patient, the percentage change in CT mean was reported for the non-necrotic regions of PDAC tumor (14 ± 7.3%), liver (5.6 ± 1.3%) and spleen (7.7 ± 3.3%). Mean CT number decreased in all ROIs from all patients, with the tumor regions consistently expressing the biggest reduction in CT number. This observation suggested that there were treatment-induced effects on the tumor CT numbers across the patient cohort.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
PDP effects after light treatment are seen with texture analysis. (A) A visualization of intratumor changes due to light treatment quantified by GLCM texture analysis. Means of tumor CT number before and after treatment are 74 ± 23 HU and 67 ± 17 HU, respectively. Tumor homogeneity is increased, while levels of contrast and dissimilarity are decreased, indicating a more uniform tumor attenuation profile. (B) Texture features that showed a statistical significance between Pre-Tx and Post-Tx scans are reported (n = 235 tumor slices) (C) Mean ROC curve for each reported feature calculated for all patients except for Patient 01, showing AUC values in the range of 0.75–0.80. (D) Mean ROC curve of combined classifiers using SVM model in blue yielded a better performance than any single classifier (AUC value is 0.93 ± 0.07). Leave-one-patient-out cross validation ROC curves are showed for all patients except Patient 01, and the shaded area indicated the ± 1 standard deviation of this cross validation.

References

    1. Adamska A, Domenichini A and Falasca M 2017. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: current and evolving therapies Int. J. Mol. Sci 18 1338.
    1. Canti G et al. 1994. Antitumor immunity induced by photodynamic therapy with aluminum disulfonated phthalocyanines and laser light Anticancer. Drugs 5 443–7
    1. Chauhan VP, Stylianopoulos T, Boucher Y and Jain RK 2011. delivery of molecular and nanoscale medicine to tumors: transport barriers and strategies Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng 2 281–98
    1. Chen X. et al. Assessment of treatment response during chemoradiation therapy for pancreatic cancer based on quantitative radiomic analysis of daily CTs: an exploratory study. PLoS One. 2017;12 e0178961.
    1. Cheng S-H, Cheng Y-J, Jin Z-Y and Xue H-D 2019. Unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: role of CT quantitative imaging biomarkers for predicting outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy Eur. J. Radiol 113 188–97
    1. Cozzi L. et al. Computed tomography based radiomic signature as predictive of survival and local control after stereotactic body radiation therapy in pancreatic carcinoma. PLoS One. 2019;14 e0210758.
    1. Dalal V et al. 2020. Radiomics in stratification of pancreatic cystic lesions: machine learning in action Cancer Lett. 469 228–37
    1. Dougherty TJ et al. 1998. Photodynamic therapy J. Nat. Cancer Inst 90 889–905
    1. Eilaghi A. et al. CT texture features are associated with overall survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma—a quantitative analysis. BMC Med. Imaging. 2017;17:38.
    1. Fave X et al. 2015. Preliminary investigation into sources of uncertainty in quantitative imaging features Comput. Med. Imaging Graph 44 54–61
    1. Feig C et al. 2012. The pancreas cancer microenvironment Clin. Cancer Res 18 4266–76
    1. Gillen S, Schuster T, Meyer zum Büschenfelde C, Friess H and Kleeff J 2010. Preoperative/neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of response and resection percentages PLoS Med. 7 e1000267
    1. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE and Hricak H 2016. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data Radiology 278 563–77
    1. Hanada Y et al. 2021. EUS-guided verteporfin photodynamic therapy for pancreatic cancer Gastrointest. Endosc 94 179–86
    1. Huang H-C et al. 2016. Photodynamic therapy synergizes with irinotecan to overcome compensatory mechanisms and improve treatment outcomes in pancreatic cancer Cancer Res. 76 1066.
    1. Huang H-C et al. 2018. Photodynamic priming mitigates chemotherapeutic selection pressures and improves drug delivery Cancer Res. 78 558–71
    1. Huggett MT et al. 2014. Phase I/II study of verteporfin photodynamic therapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer Br. J. Cancer 110 1698–704
    1. Jermyn M et al. 2014 CT contrast predicts pancreatic cancer treatment response to verteporfin-based photodynamic therapy Phys. Med. Biol 59 1911–21
    1. Karakullukcu B et al. 2011. Photodynamic therapy of early stage oral cavity and oropharynx neoplasms: an outcome analysis of 170 patients Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 268 281–8
    1. Korbelik M 1996. Induction of tumor immunity by photodynamic therapy J. Clin. Laser Med. Surg 14 329–34
    1. Kostron H 2010. Photodynamic diagnosis and therapy and the brain Methods Mol. Biol 635 261–80
    1. Kota J, Hancock J, Kwon J and Korc M 2017. Pancreatic cancer: stroma and its current and emerging targeted therapies Cancer Lett. 391 38–49
    1. Lambin P et al. 2017. Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol 14 749–62
    1. Li L et al. 2018. Photosensitizer-encapsulated ferritins mediate photodynamic therapy against cancer-associated fibroblasts and improve tumor accumulation of nanoparticles Mol. Pharm 15 3595–9
    1. Mackin D. et al. Effect of tube current on computed tomography radiomic features. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:2354.
    1. Neesse A, Algül H, Tuveson DA and Gress TM 2015. Stromal biology and therapy in pancreatic cancer: a changing paradigm Gut 64 1476–84
    1. Nieskoski MD. et al. Collagen complexity spatially defines microregions of total tissue pressure in pancreatic cancer. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:10093.
    1. Nioche C et al. 2018. Lifex: a freeware for radiomic feature calculation in multimodality imaging to accelerate advances in the characterization of tumor heterogeneity Cancer Res. 78 4786–9
    1. Obaid G et al. 2019. Impacting pancreatic cancer therapy in heterotypic in vitro organoids and in vivo tumors with specificity-tuned, NIR-activable photoimmunonanoconjugates: towards conquering desmoplasia? Nano Lett. 19 7573–87
    1. Pedregosa F et al. 2011. Scikit-learn: machine learning in python J. Mach. Learn. Res 12 2825–30
    1. Perentes JY et al. 2014. Low-dose vascular photodynamic therapy decreases tumor interstitial fluid pressure, which promotes liposomal doxorubicin distribution in a murine sarcoma metastasis model Transl. Oncol 7 393–9
    1. Rhim AD et al. 2014. Stromal elements act to restrain, rather than support, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Cancer Cell 25 735–47
    1. Rizzo S. et al. Radiomics: the facts and the challenges of image analysis. Eur. Radiol. Exp. 2018;2:36.
    1. Samkoe KS. et al. Contrast enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging as a surrogate to map verteporfin delivery in photodynamic therapy. J. Biomed. Opt. 2013;18:120504.
    1. Sandrasegaran K, Lin Y, Asare-Sawiri M, Taiyini T and Tann M 2019. CT texture analysis of pancreatic cancer Eur. Radiol 29 1067–73
    1. Siegel R, Naishadham D and Jemal A 2013. Cancer statistics, 2013 CA Cancer J. Clin 63 11–30
    1. Snyder JW, Greco WR, Bellnier DA, Vaughan L and Henderson BW 2003. Photodynamic therapy: a means to enhanced drug delivery to tumors Cancer Res. 63 8126–31
    1. Vincent P et al. 2020. High-resolution ex vivo elastography to characterize tumor stromal heterogeneity in situ in pancreatic adenocarcinoma IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng 67 2490–6
    1. Yano T et al. 2012. Photodynamic therapy as salvage treatment for local failure after chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a phase II study Int. J. Cancer 131 1228–34

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner