Rationale and Objectives
To develop a combined model incorporating the clinical and PET features for identifying
patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) at high risk of progression or
relapse after first-line therapy, compared to International Prognostic Index (IPI)
and Deauville score (DS) assessment.
Materials and Methods
271 18F-FDG PET images with DLBCL were retrospectively collected and randomly divided into
the training (n=190) and test dataset (n=81). All visible lesions were annotated. Baseline, end-of-treatment (EoT), and delta
PET radiomics features were extracted. IPI model, the baseline clinical model group
(MG), DS model, the combined clinical MG, the PET-based radiomics MG, and the combined
MG were constructed to predict 2-year time to progression (2Y-TTP). For each MG, the
cross-combination method was performed to generate 1680 candidate models based on
three normalization methods, 20 features, 4 feature-selection methods, and 7 classifiers.
The model achieving the highest AUC was selected as the best for each MG. Cox regression
analysis was further performed.
Results
In the test set, the best combined model showed better discriminative power compared
to IPI model, the best baseline clinical model, DS model, the best combined clinical
model, and the best PET-based radiomics model (AUC 0.898 vs. 0.584, 0.695, 0.756,
0.824, 0.832; p < 0.001, 0.014, 0.018, 0.152, 0.042, respectively). The combined model was superior
to other models for progression-free-survival prediction (C-index: 0.853 vs. 0.568,
0.666, 0.753, 0.808, 0.814, respectively).
Conclusion
A combined model for identifying patients at high risk of progression or relapse after
first-line therapy was constructed, superior to IPI and DS assessment.
Key Words
Abbreviations:
DLBCL (Diffuse large B cell lymphoma), EoT (end-of-treatment), IPI (international prognostic index), DS (Deauville scores), SUV (standard uptake value), TLG (total lesion glycolysis), MTV (metabolic tumor volume), ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient), 2Y-TTP (2-year time to progression), PFS (progression-free survival), OS (overall survival), MG (model group), CV (cross-validation)To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Academic RadiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
Reference
- Non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype distribution, geodemographic patterns, and survival in the US: A longitudinal analysis of the National Cancer Data Base from 1998 to 2011.Am J Hematol. 2015; 90: 790-795https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.24086
- Non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the developing world: review of 4539 cases from the International Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Classification Project.Haematologica. 2016; 101: 1244-1250https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2016.148809
- (18)F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: a study of 766 patients.J Nucl Med. 2010; 51: 25-30https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.067892
- Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.Ann Oncol. 2012; 23: vii78-vii82https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds273
- NCCN Guidelines(R) Insights: B-Cell Lymphomas, Version 5.2021.J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021; 19: 1218-1230https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2021.0054
- Role of routine imaging in detecting recurrent lymphoma: A review of 258 patients with relapsed aggressive non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma.Am J Hematol. 2014; 89: 575-580https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.23688
- Prognostic indices in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era: an analysis of the UK National Cancer Research Institute R-CHOP 14 versus 21 phase 3 trial.Br J Haematol. 2021; 192: 1015-1019https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.16691
- International prognostic indices in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a comparison of IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI.Blood. 2020; 135: 2041-2048https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2019002729
- Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Version 1.2016.J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016; 14: 196-231https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2016.0023
- Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group.J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 3048-3058https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5229
- Dynamic risk assessment based on positron emission tomography scanning in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Post-hoc analysis from the PETAL trial.Eur J Cancer. 2020; 124: 25-36https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.09.027
- Prognostic value of metabolic tumour volume on baseline (18)F-FDG PET/CT in addition to NCCN-IPI in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: further stratification of the group with a high-risk NCCN-IPI.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019; 46: 1417-1427https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04309-4
- Baseline (18)F-FDG PET radiomic features as predictors of 2-year event-free survival in diffuse large B cell lymphomas treated with immunochemotherapy.Eur Radiol. 2020; 30: 4623-4632https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06815-8
- (18)F-FDG PET baseline radiomics features improve the prediction of treatment outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05480-3
- Optimal PET-based radiomic signature construction based on the cross-combination method for predicting the survival of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05717-9
- (18)F-FDG PET Improves Baseline Clinical Predictors of Response in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: The HOVON-84 Study.J Nucl Med. 2022; 63: 1001-1007https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.262205
- Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma.J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 571-578https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.08.2305
- FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42: 328-354https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x
- Computational Radiomics System to Decode the Radiographic Phenotype.Cancer Res. 2017; 77: e104-e107https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0339
- The Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative: Standardized Quantitative Radiomics for High-Throughput Image-based Phenotyping.Radiology. 2020; 295: 328-338https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020191145
- Robustness of radiomic features in CT images with different slice thickness, comparing liver tumour and muscle.Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 8262https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87598-w
- Voxel size and gray level normalization of CT radiomic features in lung cancer.Sci Rep. 2018; 8: 10545https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28895-9
- Metrics for evaluating 3D medical image segmentation: analysis, selection, and tool.Bmc Med Imaging. 2015; 15https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-015-0068-x
- A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.N Engl J Med. 1993; 329: 987-994https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199309303291402
- FeAture Explorer (FAE): A tool for developing and comparing radiomics models.PLoS One. 2020; 15e0237587https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237587
- A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing machine learning training data.SIGKDD Explor. 2004; 6: 20-29https://doi.org/10.1145/1007730.1007735
- End-of-Treatment PET/Computed Tomography Response in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.PET Clin. 2019; 14: 307-315https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpet.2019.03.001
- Long-term results of PET-guided radiation in patients with advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP.Blood. 2021; 137: 929-938https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2020005846
- The prognostic role of end-of-treatment FDG-PET/CT in diffuse large B cell lymphoma: a pilot study application of neural networks to predict time-to-event.Ann Nucl Med. 2021; 35: 102-110https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-020-01542-y
- Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET in diffuse large cell lymphoma: results from the CALGB 50303 Clinical Trial.Blood. 2020; 135: 2224-2234https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2019003277
- Baseline and ongoing PET-derived factors predict detrimental effect or potential utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT (FDG-PET/CT) performed for surveillance in asymptomatic lymphoma patients in first remission.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016; 43: 232-239https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3164-9
- Learning from class-imbalanced data: Review of methods and applications.Expert Syst Appl. 2017; 73: 220-239https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.12.035
- Correlations between metabolic texture features, genetic heterogeneity, and mutation burden in patients with lung cancer.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019; 46: 446-454https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4138-5
- Quantitative image variables reflect the intratumoral pathologic heterogeneity of lung adenocarcinoma.Oncotarget. 2016; 7: 67302-67313https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.11693
- The significance of intertumor and intratumor heterogeneity in liver cancer.Exp Mol Med. 2018; 50: e416https://doi.org/10.1038/emm.2017.165
- Pan-cancer analysis of intratumor heterogeneity as a prognostic determinant of survival.Oncotarget. 2016; 7: 10051-10063https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.7067
- Automated Segmentation of Baseline Metabolic Total Tumor Burden in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Which Method Is Most Successful? A Study on Behalf of the PETRA Consortium.J Nucl Med. 2021; 62: 332-337https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.238923
- Deep-Learning (18)F-FDG Uptake Classification Enables Total Metabolic Tumor Volume Estimation in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.J Nucl Med. 2021; 62: 30-36https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.242412
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 25, 2022
Accepted:
October 11,
2022
Received in revised form:
September 22,
2022
Received:
August 16,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2022 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.