Page 51 - TD-2-3
P. 51

Tumor Discovery                                                  CE-SWI in desmoid fibromatosis assessment



            from CE-SWI and T2-STIR sequences. mChoi values were   of  50%  were  considered  thresholds  for  progression  and
            estimated as a normalization quotient obtained by dividing an   response, respectively, for 3D volumetric assessment [11,31] .
            entire desmoid lesion’s mean 3D intensity value by the adjacent
            standard muscle intensity value [6,11,27] . An IBSI-compliant [28,29]    3. Results
            open-source in-house developed software (CARPI-AF:   This study included eight female and two male patients
            Cancer Radiomic and Perfusion Imaging Automated    with an average age of 42 years (range 19 – 61 years). Five
            Framework) was used to automatically extract five first-  patients were treated with sorafenib, two with pazopanib,
            order radiomic features (mean, skewness, kurtosis, 10  and   and three were undergoing active surveillance without
                                                      th
            90   percentiles) from the CE-SWI and T2 images. Before   therapy. Given the reduced pilot study sample size, we did
              th
            radiomic feature extraction, all images were preprocessed in   not include an analysis of therapeutic efficacy but focused
            CARPI-AF by performing interpolation to isotropic voxel   on the development of imaging biomarkers.
            spacing of 1 mm using B-spline and discretization using a
            fixed histogram bin count of 50 . Finally, for each patient,   Of the 10 patients, two were considered true progression
                                     [30]
            the percentage of voxels accumulated below the 10  and above   based on T2-based RECIST, while eight were deemed
                                                 th
            the 90  percentiles (10  and 90  percentile proportions) were   stable. No true T2-RECIST-based positive responses were
                                   th
                             th
                th
            computed for the 10  and 90  percentile cutoffs at the first-  included in this pilot study.
                            th
                                  th
            time point in the patient’s treatment.
                                                               3.1. True T2-based RECIST progression
              Patient  response  was  assessed  using  conventional
            RECIST  as  a  reference  standard  and  compared  against   Two patients displayed true progression based on the
            T2-STIR and CE-SWI volumetric assessment, mChoi, first-  T2-based RECIST reference standard (Figure  2, left
            order radiomic features, and routine radiologic reporting   panels). This same result was detected by CE-SWI volume
            (RRR). Thresholds for progression and response were set at   and mChoi at an average of 4.5  months earlier than
            20% and 30% for unidimensional RECIST and volumetric   T2-based RECIST. According to RRR, CE-SWI volume,
            mChoi assessments . An increase of 25% and a decrease   and mChoi, both cases were assessed as progressive. In
                           [11]

































            Figure 2. Left panels show true progression by T2-based Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), also detected by volume and mChoi with
            an average of 4.5 months earlier. Middle panels show stable RECIST with discrepancy assessment of progression by volume in two representative patients.
            Clinical radiologists (routine radiologic reporting [RRR]) are often insensitive to detect progression by volume change. Right panels show stable RECIST
            with discrepancy assessment of response by mChoi in two representative patients. Clinical radiologists (RRR) are very sensitive to changes in T2 signal and
            enhancement in correlation with the variation of mChoi values.


            Volume 2 Issue 3 (2023)                         4                          https://doi.org/10.36922/td.1414
   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56