Synopsis
There is a clinical need for non-invasive imaging biomarkers capable of accurately predicting outcomes in locally advanced cancers. Microvascular heterogeneity measurements obtained from dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI have shown prognostic utility however no attempt has been made to compare the prognostic value of the available methods across disease and identify which type of heterogeneity (statistical or spatial) is important for survival. In this study we identify heterogeneity biomarkers that are universally prognostic across cancers of the cervix, bladder, and head and neck and compare their prognostic value to standard clinicopathologic factors such as disease stage. AUDIENCE
Clinicians and imaging scientists interested in the role of tumor microvascular heterogeneity in survival.
INTRODUCTION
Intratumoral cellular heterogeneity has been observed in many cancers and associated with treatment resistance, increased metastatic potential, and poor outcomes
1. Radiologic study often reveals microvascular heterogeneity, prompting the development of numerous methods that attempt to quantify spatial and statistical variability in microvascular function. These are often more sensitive to treatment-induced changes than summaries such as median
Ktrans, and some have shown prognostic value in cervix
2,3 and head and neck
4 cancer. However no attempt has been made to compare the prognostic value of the available methods across disease and identify which type of heterogeneity (statistical or spatial) is important. A recent review by O’Connor et al.
5 categorized heterogeneity statistics into four classes: histogram, texture, partitioning, and multispectral. Here we identify heterogeneity statistics that are universally prognostic of disease-free survival (DFS) across cervix, bladder and head and neck cancer.
METHODS
Pre-treatment DCE-MRI data from 108 patients (locally advanced cancer of the cervix [n = 36], bladder [n = 30], and head and neck [n = 42]) were analyzed. Imaging parameters for each cohort were similar (Table 1). Tumors were delineated on T2-weighted images by radiologists (7-23 years experience). The two-compartment exchange model6 (2CXM) was used to obtain voxel-wise estimates of plasma flow (Fp), permeability surface area product (PS), fractional plasma volume (vp), and fractional interstitial volume (ve); voxel-wise estimates of Ktrans were computed from Fp and PS. Tracer kinetic modeling was performed in IDL 8.2.2 (Exelis Visual Information Solutions, Boulder, Colorado, USA). Survival data and clinicopathologic variables were obtained (patient age, disease type, treatment type, tumor stage, nodal status, and tumor volume). Local research ethics approvals were obtained. Patients gave written informed consent.
Within each class of heterogeneity statistic identified by O’Connor et al., we selected methods that had: been used by more than one research group, used in more than one disease, and shown previous association with disease stage, treatment efficacy, or survival. We selected the histogram statistics median, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis; the texture statistics box-counting dimension7 and the Minkowski functionals (MF) area, perimeter, and genus (using a method similar to Canuto et al.8; here, the area, perimeter, or genus statistic is computed on a parameter map thresholded at each of a number of thresholds); the multispectral statistics cluster volume fractions and cluster centroids (using a k-means clustering method similar to Berry et al.9, with k = 2); and the partitioning statistics enhancing fraction and enhancing volume. All statistics were computed for the five tracer kinetic parameter maps for each patient.
We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in the ability to predict DFS between a null model parameterized by the clinicopathological variables alone and an alternative model parameterized by clinicopathological and heterogeneity statistics. As the number of variables greatly exceeded the number of patients, we used a random survival forest analysis10 and the variable hunting algorithm11 to automatically and objectively select prognostic variables. Prognostic value of the selected variables was quantified by variable importance (VIMP)10. To avoid heterogeneity variables coding for disease, variables were converted to intra-disease quantiles prior to modeling. Predictive accuracy was quantified using Harrell’s concordance index in 5-fold cross validation. The null hypothesis was tested using a paired one-sided t-test. Statistical analyses were performed in R 3.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
RESULTS
Ten variables were identified as universally prognostic across all three diseases (disease type and nine heterogeneity statistics). The heterogeneity statistics selected were (in decreasing order of importance by VIMP): MF perimeter for
Ktrans (thresholded at quantile 0.1), MF genus for
PS (thresholded at quantiles 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8), kurtosis of
Fp, largest cluster volume fraction, skewness of
Fp, MF genus for
Ktrans (thresholded at quantile 0.5), and MF perimeter for
Fp (threshold at quantile 0.2). Figure 1 shows predicted 3-year DFS probabilities for the selected variables. Figure 2 shows Kaplan-Meier DFS curve estimates for a subset of these variables. Figure 3 shows representative differences in heterogeneity between patients with short and long DFS. Predictive accuracies (concordance indices) for the null and alternative models were 67% and 77% respectively (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that an alternative model that uses heterogeneity statistics more accurately predicts DFS. Histogram, texture, and multispectral statistics were selected, suggesting these aspects of heterogeneity are important for predicting DFS (see caption for Figure 3 for interpretation), but partitioning methods (i.e., enhancing fraction) may not be universally predictive.
Acknowledgements
Christie Medical Physics and Engineering for funding the postgraduate study of BRD. References
1. Burrell et al. The causes and consequences of genetic heterogeneity in cancer evolution. Nature, 2013, 501: 338-345.
2. Mayr et al. Characterizing tumor heterogeneity with functional imaging and quantifying high-risk tumor volume for early prediction of treatment outcome: cervical cancer as a model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2012, 83(3):927-9.
3. Lund et al. Short-term pretreatment DCE-MRI in prediction of outcome in locally advanced cervical cancer. Radiotherapy Oncology, 2015, 15(3):379-85.
4. Shuckla-Dave et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of outcome in head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma patients with nodal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 82(5):1837-44.
5. O’Connor et al. Imaging Intratumor Heterogeneity: Role in Therapy Response, Resistance, and Clinical Outcome. Clinical Cancer Research, 2015, 21; 249.
6. Brix et al. Microcirculation and Microvasculature in Breast Tumors: Pharmacokinetic Analysis of Dynamic MR Image Series. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2004, 52:420 – 429.
7. Rose et al. Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameter maps. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2009, 62:488-499.
8. Canuto et al., Characterization of image heterogeneity using 2D Minkowski functionals increases the sensitivity of detection of a targeted MRI contrast agent. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2009, 61:1218 –1224.
9. Berry et al. Quantification of viable tumor microvascular characteristics by multispectral analysis. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2008, 60 : 64-72.
10. Ishwaren et al. Random Survival Forests, The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2008, 2(3), 841–860.
11. Ishwaren et al. High-Dimensional Variable Selection for Survival Data, JASA, 2010, 105(489), 205-217.