% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Watanabe:274138,
author = {M. Watanabe$^*$ and R. Ashida and C. Miyakoshi and S.
Arizono and T. Suga and S. Kanao and K. Kitamura and T.
Ogawa and R. Ishikura},
title = {{P}rognostic analysis of curatively resected pancreatic
cancer using harmonized positron emission tomography
radiomic features.},
journal = {European journal of hybrid imaging},
volume = {7},
number = {1},
issn = {2510-3636},
address = {London},
publisher = {SpringerOpen},
reportid = {DKFZ-2023-00448},
pages = {5},
year = {2023},
abstract = {Texture features reflecting tumour heterogeneity enable us
to investigate prognostic factors. The R package ComBat can
harmonize the quantitative texture features among several
positron emission tomography (PET) scanners. We aimed to
identify prognostic factors among harmonized PET radiomic
features and clinical information from pancreatic cancer
patients who underwent curative surgery.Fifty-eight patients
underwent preoperative enhanced dynamic computed tomography
(CT) scanning and fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT using four PET
scanners. Using LIFEx software, we measured PET radiomic
parameters including texture features with higher order and
harmonized these PET parameters. For progression-free
survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), we evaluated
clinical information, including age, TNM stage, and neural
invasion, and the harmonized PET radiomic features based on
univariate Cox proportional hazard regression. Next, we
analysed the prognostic indices by multivariate Cox
proportional hazard regression (1) by using either
significant (p < 0.05) or borderline significant (p =
0.05-0.10) indices in the univariate analysis (first
multivariate analysis) or (2) by using the selected features
with random forest algorithms (second multivariate
analysis). Finally, we checked these multivariate results by
log-rank test.Regarding the first multivariate analysis for
PFS after univariate analysis, age was the significant
prognostic factor (p = 0.020), and MTV and GLCM contrast
were borderline significant (p = 0.051 and 0.075,
respectively). Regarding the first multivariate analysis of
OS, neural invasion, Shape sphericity and GLZLM LZLGE were
significant (p = 0.019, 0.042 and 0.0076). In the second
multivariate analysis, only MTV was significant (p = 0.046)
for PFS, whereas GLZLM LZLGE was significant (p = 0.047),
and Shape sphericity was borderline significant (p = 0.088)
for OS. In the log-rank test, age, MTV and GLCM contrast
were borderline significant for PFS (p = 0.08, 0.06 and
0.07, respectively), whereas neural invasion and Shape
sphericity were significant (p = 0.03 and 0.04,
respectively), and GLZLM LZLGE was borderline significant
for OS (p = 0.08).Other than the clinical factors, MTV and
GLCM contrast for PFS and Shape sphericity and GLZLM LZLGE
for OS may be prognostic PET parameters. A prospective
multicentre study with a larger sample size may be
warranted.},
keywords = {Complete surgery (Other) / FDG PET/CT (Other) /
Harmonization (Other) / Overall survival (Other) / PET
radiomics (Other) / Pancreatic cancer (Other) /
Progression-free survival (Other) / Random forest (Other)},
cin = {ED01},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)ED01-20160331},
pnm = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:36872413},
doi = {10.1186/s41824-023-00163-8},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/274138},
}