Pathologic response prediction to neoadjuvant chemotherapy utilizing pretreatment near-infrared imaging parameters and tumor pathologic criteria

Quing Zhu, Liqun Wang, Susan Tannenbaum, Andrew Ricci Jr, Patricia DeFusco, Poornima Hegde, Quing Zhu, Liqun Wang, Susan Tannenbaum, Andrew Ricci Jr, Patricia DeFusco, Poornima Hegde

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to develop a prediction model utilizing tumor hemoglobin parameters measured by ultrasound-guided near-infrared optical tomography (US-NIR) in conjunction with standard pathologic tumor characteristics to predict pathologic response before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is given.

Methods: Thirty-four patients' data were retrospectively analyzed using a multiple logistic regression model to predict response. These patients were split into 30 groups of training (24 tumors) and testing (12 tumors) for cross validation. Tumor vascularity was assessed using US-NIR measurements of total hemoglobin (tHb), oxygenated (oxyHb) and deoxygenated hemoglobin (deoxyHb) concentrations acquired before treatment. Tumor pathologic variables of tumor type, Nottingham score, mitotic index, the estrogen and progesterone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 acquired before NAC in biopsy specimens were also used in the prediction model. The patients' pathologic response was graded based on the Miller-Payne system. The overall performance of the prediction models was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The quantitative measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) and the area under the ROC curve (AUC).

Results: Utilizing tumor pathologic variables alone, average sensitivity of 56.8%, average specificity of 88.9%, average PPV of 84.8%, average NPV of 70.9% and average AUC of 84.0% were obtained from the testing data. Among the hemoglobin predictors with and without tumor pathological variables, the best predictor was tHb combined with tumor pathological variables, followed by oxyHb with pathological variables. When tHb was included with tumor pathological variables as an additional predictor, the corresponding measures improved to 79%, 94%, 90%, 86% and 92.4%, respectively. When oxyHb was included with tumor variables as an additional predictor, these measures improved to 77%, 85%, 83%, 83% and 90.6%, respectively. The addition of tHb or oxyHb significantly improved the prediction sensitivity, NPV and AUC compared with using tumor pathological variables alone.

Conclusions: These initial findings indicate that combining widely used tumor pathologic variables with hemoglobin parameters determined by US-NIR may provide a powerful tool for predicting patient pathologic response to NAC before the start of treatment.

Trial registration: ClincalTrials.gov ID: NCT00908609 (registered 22 May 2009).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Box-and-whisker plot of baseline total hemoglobin, oxygenated hemoglobin and deoxygenated hemoglobin of two responder groups. deoxyHb, Deoxygenated hemoglobin; MP, Miller-Payne grade; oxyHb, Oxygenated hemoglobin; tHb, Total hemoglobin.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Box-and-whisker plots of area under the receiver operating characteristic curves obtained from prediction models of 12 sets of predictor variables. (a) Training data. (b) Testing data. Char, Predictor variables of tumor characteristics of type, Nottingham score, mitotic count; Char+Rec, Predictor variables of tumor characteristics and receptor status of triple-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), estrogen receptor (ER); tHb, oxyHb, deoxyHb: Predictor variables of pretreatment maximum total hemoglobin (tHb), oxygenated hemoglobin (oxyHb) and deoxygenated hemoglobin (deoxyHb), respectively; tHboxyHb, tHbdeoxyHb: Combined predictor variables of tHb and oxyHb, tHb and deoxyHb, respectively; Char+Rec+corresponding hemoglobin variables: Combined predictor variables of tumor characteristics, receptor status and corresponding hemoglobin predictors. ROC, Receiver operating characteristic.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Training data. Box-and-whisker plot of sensitivity (a), specificity (b), positive predictive value (c), and negative predictive value (d) obtained from 12 prediction models with predictor variables given along the x-axis. The predictor variables are the same as those given in Figure 2.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Testing data. Box-and-whisker plot of sensitivity (a), specificity (b), positive predictive value (c), and negative predictive value (d) obtained from 12 prediction models with predictor variables given along the x-axis. The predictor variables are the same as those given in Figure 2.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Typical example of receiver operating characteristic curves obtained with pathological variables. (a) Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) obtained from tumor pathological variables only. (b) ROC obtained from tumor tHb only. (c) ROC obtained from tHb with pathological variables. (d) ROC obtained from oxyHb only. (e) ROC obtained from oxyHb. The 95% confidence interval is also given in each figure.

References

    1. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, Wieand S, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Cruz AB, Jr, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N, DeCillis A, Hoehn JL, Lees AW, Dimitrov NV. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2483–2493.
    1. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001;30:96–102. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a003469.
    1. Gampenrieder SP, Rinnerthaler G, Greil R: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and targeted therapy in breast cancer: past, present, and future.J Oncol 2013, 2013:732047.,
    1. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Hoehn JL, Vogel VG, Dakhil SR, Tamkus D, King KM, Pajon ER, Wright MJ, Robert J, Paik S, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N: Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:778–785. A published erratum appears in.J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:2793.,
    1. Bardia A, Baselga J. Neoadjuvant therapy as a platform for drug development and approval in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:6360–6370. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0916.
    1. Rakha EA, Ellis IO. An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60:1300–1306. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2006.045377.
    1. Pinder SE, Murray S, Ellis IO, Trihia H, Elston CW, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, Lindtner J, Cortés-Funes H, Simoncini E, Byrne MJ, Golouh R, Rudenstam CM, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Gusterson BA. The importance of the histologic grade of invasive breast carcinoma and response to chemotherapy. Cancer. 1998;83:1529–1539. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19981015)83:8<1529::AID-CNCR7>;2-V.
    1. Denley H, Pinder SE, Elston CW, Lee AH, Ellis IO. Preoperative assessment of prognostic factors in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54:20–24. doi: 10.1136/jcp.54.1.20.
    1. Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, Hastie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Thorsen T, Quist H, Matese JC, Brown PO, Botstein D, Lønning PE, Børresen-Dale AL. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:10869–10874. doi: 10.1073/pnas.191367098.
    1. Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM, Korn EL, Long PM, Jazaeri A, Martiat P, Fox SB, Harris AL, Liu ET. Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:10393–10398. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1732912100.
    1. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, Ibrahim N, Cristofanilli M, Anderson K, Hess KR, Stec J, Ayers M, Wagner P, Morandi P, Fan C, Rabiul I, Ross JS, Hortobagyi GN, Pusztai L. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:5678–5685. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2421.
    1. Venkitaraman R. Triple-negative/basal-like breast cancer: clinical, pathologic and molecular features. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010;10:199–207. doi: 10.1586/era.09.189.
    1. Chang HR. Trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant therapy in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer. 2010;116:2856–2867. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25120.
    1. von Minckwitz G, Martin M. Neoadjuvant treatments for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) Ann Oncol. 2012;23:vi35–vi39. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds193.
    1. Masuda H, Baggerly KA, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Meric-Bernstam F, Valero V, Lehmann BD, Pietenpol JA, Hortobagyi GN, Symmans WF, Ueno NT. Differential response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among 7 triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:5533–5540. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0799.
    1. Turner NC, Reis-Filho JS. Tackling the diversity of triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:6380–6388. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0915.
    1. Lips EH, Mulder L, de Ronde JJ, Mandjes IA, Vincent A, Vrancken Peeters MT, Nederlof PM, Wesseling J, Rodenhuis S. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ER+ HER2− breast cancer: response prediction based on immunohistochemical and molecular characteristics. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131:827–836. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1488-0.
    1. Colleoni M, Bagnardi V, Rotmensz N, Viale G, Mastropasqua M, Veronesi P, Cardillo A, Torrisi R, Luini A, Goldhirsch A. A nomogram based on the expression of Ki-67, steroid hormone receptors status and number of chemotherapy courses to predict pathological complete remission after preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:2216–2224. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.008.
    1. Rouzier R, Pusztai L, Delaloge S, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Andre F, Hess KR, Buzdar AU, Garbay JR, Spielmann M, Mathieu MC, Symmans WF, Wagner P, Atallah D, Valero V, Berry DA, Hortobagyi GN. Nomograms to predict pathologic complete response and metastasis-free survival after preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8331–8339. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.2898.
    1. Keam B, Im SA, Park S, Nam BH, Han SW, Oh DY, Kim JH, Lee SH, Han W, Kim DW, Kim TY, Park IA, Noh DY, Heo DS, Bang YJ. Nomogram predicting clinical outcomes in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2011;137:1301–1308. doi: 10.1007/s00432-011-0991-3.
    1. Frati A, Chereau E, Coutant C, Bezu C, Antoine M, Chopier J, Daraï E, Uzan S, Gligorov J, Rouzier R. Comparison of two nomograms to predict pathologic complete responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: evidence that HER2-positive tumors need specific predictors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;132:601–607. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1897-0.
    1. Colleoni M, Bagnardi V, Rotmensz N, Dellapasqua S, Viale G, Pruneri G, Veronesi P, Torrisi R, Luini A, Intra M, Galimberti V, Montagna E, Goldhirsch A. A risk score to predict disease-free survival in patients not achieving a pathological complete remission after preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1178–1184. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdn747.
    1. Cerussi A, Hsiang D, Shah N, Mehta R, Durkin A, Butler J, Tromberg BJ. Predicting response to breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy using diffuse optical spectroscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:4014–4019. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611058104.
    1. Choe R, Durduran T. Diffuse optical monitoring of the neoadjuvant breast cancer therapy. IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron. 2012;18:1367–1386. doi: 10.1109/JSTQE.2011.2177963.
    1. Zhu Q, Tannenbaum S, Hegde P, Kane M, Xu C, Kurtzman SH. Noninvasive monitoring of breast cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy using optical tomography with ultrasound localization. Neoplasia. 2008;10:1028–1040. doi: 10.1593/neo.08602.
    1. Jiang S, Pogue BW, Carpenter CM, Poplack SP, Wells WA, Kogel CA, Forero JA, Muffly LS, Schwartz GN, Paulsen KD, Kaufman PA. Evaluation of breast tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with tomographic diffuse optical spectroscopy: case studies of tumor region-of-interest changes. Radiology. 2009;252:551–560. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2522081202.
    1. Soliman H, Gunasekara A, Rycroft M, Zubovits J, Dent R, Spayne J, Yaffe MJ, Czarnota GJ. Functional imaging using diffuse optical spectroscopy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in women with locally advanced breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:2605–2614. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1510.
    1. Roblyer D, Ueda S, Cerussi A, Tanamai W, Durkin A, Mehta R, Hsiang D, Butler JA, McLaren C, Chen WP, Tromberg B. Optical imaging of breast cancer oxyhemoglobin flare correlates with neoadjuvant chemotherapy response one day after starting treatment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:14626–14631. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1013103108.
    1. Zhu Q, Kurtzman S, Hegde P, Tannenbaum S, Kane M, Huang MM, Chen NG, Jagjivan B, Zarfos K. Utilizing optical tomography with ultrasound localization to image heterogeneous hemoglobin distribution in large breast cancers. Neoplasia. 2005;7:263–270. doi: 10.1593/neo.04526.
    1. Zhu Q, DeFusco PA, Ricci A, Jr, Cronin EB, Hegde PU, Kane M, Tavakoli B, Xu Y, Hart J, Tannenbaum SH. Breast cancer: assessing response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by using US-guided near-infrared tomography. Radiology. 2013;266:433–442. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12112415.
    1. Ueda S, Roblyer D, Cerussi A, Durkin A, Leproux A, Santoro Y, Xu S, O’Sullivan TD, Hsiang D, Mehta R, Butler J, Tromberg BJ. Baseline tumor oxygen saturation correlates with a pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 2012;72:4318–4328. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-0056.
    1. Falou O, Soliman H, Sadeghi-Naini A, Iradji S, Lemon-Wong S, Zubovits J, Spayne J, Dent R, Trudeau M, Boileau JF, Wright FC, Yaffe MJ, Czarnota GJ. Diffuse optical spectroscopy evaluation of treatment response in women with locally advanced breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Transl Oncol. 2012;5:238–246. doi: 10.1593/tlo.11346.
    1. Ogston KN, Miller ID, Payne S, Hutcheon AW, Sarkar TK, Smith I, Schofield A, Heys SD. A new histologic grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast. 2003;12:320–327. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9776(03)00106-1.
    1. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LM, Muller KE, Nizam A. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Independence, KY: Duxbury Press; 1998.
    1. Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, Müller M: pROC: an open-source package for R and S + to analyze and compare ROC curves.BMC Bioinformatics 2011, 12:77.,
    1. Koukourakis MI, Manolas C, Minopoulos G, Giatromanolaki A, Sivridis E. Angiogenesis relates to estrogen receptor negativity, c-erbB-2 overexpression and early relapse in node-negative ductal carcinoma of the breast. Int J Surg Pathol. 2003;11:29–34. doi: 10.1177/106689690301100107.
    1. Fuckar D, Dekanić A, Stifter S, Mustać E, Krstulja M, Dobrila F, Jonjić N. VEGF expression is associated with negative estrogen receptor status in patients with breast cancer. Int J Surg Pathol. 2006;14:49–55. doi: 10.1177/106689690601400109.
    1. Elkin M, Orgel A, Kleinman HK. An angiogenic switch in breast cancer involves estrogen and soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:875–878. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djh140.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться