Radiogenomics of rectal adenocarcinoma in the era of precision medicine: A pilot study of associations between qualitative and quantitative MRI imaging features and genetic mutations

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_HORVAT_Radiogenomics_of_rectal_adenocarcinoma_in_the_era_of_2019.PDF (3 MB)
Citações na Scopus
36
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2019
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
Autores
VEERARAGHAVAN, Harini
PELOSSOF, Raphael A.
FERNANDES, Maria Clara
ARORA, Arshi
KHAN, Monika
MARCO, Michael
CHENG, Chin-Tung
GONEN, Mithat
PERNICKA, Jennifer S. Golia
Citação
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, v.113, p.174-181, 2019
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objective: To investigate associations between genetic mutations and qualitative as well as quantitative features on MRI in rectal adenocarcinoma at primary staging. Methods: In this retrospective study, patients with rectal adenocarcinoma, genome sequencing, and pretreatment rectal MRI were included. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate associations between qualitative features obtained from subjective evaluation of rectal MRI and gene mutations as well as between quantitative textural features and gene mutations. For the qualitative evaluation, Fisher's Exact test was used to analyze categorical associations and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used for continuous clinical variables. For the quantitative evaluation, we performed manual segmentation of T2-weighted images for radiomics-based quantitative image analysis. Thirty-four texture features consisting of first order intensity histogram-based features (n= 4), second order Haralick textures (n= 5), and Gabor-edge based Haralick textures were computed at two different orientations. Consensus clustering was performed with 34 computed texture features using the K-means algorithm with Euclidean distance between the texture features. The clusters resulting from the algorithm were then used to enumerate the prevalence of gene mutations in those clusters. Results: In 65 patients, 45 genes were mutated in more than 3/65 patients (5%) and were included in the statistical analysis. Regarding qualitative imaging features, on univariate analysis, tumor location was significantly associated with APC (p= 0.032) and RASA1 mutation (p= 0.032); CRM status was significantly associated with ATM mutation (p= 0.021); and lymph node metastasis was significantly associated with BRCA2 (p= 0.046) mutation. However, these associations were not significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Regarding quantitative imaging features, Cluster C1 had tumors with higher mean Gabor edge intensity compared with cluster C2 (theta=0 degrees, p= 0.018;theta= 45 degrees, p= 0.047;theta= 90 degrees, p= 0.037; cluster C3 (theta= 0 degrees, p= 0.18;theta= 45 degrees, p= 0.1;theta= 90 degrees, p= 0.052), and cluster C4 (theta= 0 degrees, p= 0.016;theta= 45 degrees, p= 0.033;theta= 90 degrees, p= 0.014) suggesting that the cluster C1 had tumors with more distinct edges or heterogeneous appearance compared with other clusters. Conclusions: Although this preliminary study showed promising associations between quantitative features and genetic mutations, it did not show any correlation between qualitative features and genetic mutations. Further studies with larger sample size are warranted to validate our preliminary data.
Palavras-chave
Rectal neoplasms, Magnetic resonance imaging, Genomics, Precision medicine
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/31865
Referências
  1. Andreyev HJN, 2001, BRIT J CANCER, V85, P692, DOI 10.1054/bjoc.2001.1964
  2. Armaghany Tannaz, 2012, Gastrointest Cancer Res, V5, P19
  3. Beets-Tan RGH, 2018, EUR RADIOL, V28, P2711, DOI 10.1007/s00330-017-5204-2
  4. Brisse HJ, 2017, PLOS ONE, V12, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0185190
  5. Cheng DT, 2015, J MOL DIAGN, V17, P251, DOI 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2014.12.006
  6. Chow OS, 2016, ANN SURG ONCOL, V23, P2548, DOI 10.1245/s10434-016-5205-4
  7. DAUGMAN JG, 1985, J OPT SOC AM A, V2, P1160, DOI 10.1364/JOSAA.2.001160
  8. Gillies RJ, 2016, RADIOLOGY, V278, P563, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2015151169
  9. Grimm LJ, 2016, J MAGN RESON IMAGING, V43, P1269, DOI 10.1002/jmri.25116
  10. Hong HS, 2013, YONSEI MED J, V54, P123, DOI 10.3349/ymj.2013.54.1.123
  11. Horvat N., 2018, RADIOLOGY
  12. Horvat N, 2018, RADIOLOGY, V287, P833, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2018172300
  13. Iacopetta B, 2003, HUM MUTAT, V21, P271, DOI 10.1002/humu.10175
  14. Karagkounis G, 2017, CLIN COLON RECT SURG, V30, DOI 10.1055/s-0037-1606373
  15. Karlo CA, 2014, RADIOLOGY, V270, P464, DOI 10.1148/radiol.13130663
  16. Kinzler KW, 1996, CELL, V87, P159, DOI 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81333-1
  17. Liu X., 2017, J NEUROONCOL
  18. Lubner MG, 2017, RADIOGRAPHICS, V37, P1483, DOI 10.1148/rg.2017170056
  19. Monti S, 2003, MACH LEARN, V52, P91, DOI 10.1023/A:1023949509487
  20. Napel S, 2015, J MED IMAGING, V2, DOI 10.1117/1.JMI.2.4.041001
  21. Nougaret S, 2013, RADIOLOGY, V268, P329, DOI 10.1148/radiol.13121361
  22. Pinker K., 2018, J MAGN RESON IMAGING
  23. Pinker K, 2018, J MAGN RESON IMAGING, V47, P604, DOI 10.1002/jmri.25870
  24. Rosenstein BS, 2017, SEMIN RADIAT ONCOL, V27, P300, DOI 10.1016/j.semradonc.2017.04.005
  25. Sala E, 2017, CLIN RADIOL, V72, P3, DOI 10.1016/j.crad.2016.09.013
  26. Ungerback J, 2012, CARCINOGENESIS, V33, P2126, DOI 10.1093/carcin/bgs256
  27. Vargas HA, 2017, RADIOLOGY, V285, P482, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2017161870
  28. Woodard GA, 2018, RADIOLOGY, V286, P60, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2017162333
  29. Yang L, 2018, EUR RADIOL, V28, P2058, DOI 10.1007/s00330-017-5146-8
  30. Zhou M., 2017, RADIOLOGY

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICESP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - ODS/03