Search

Background: We developed models for tumor segmentation to automate the assessment of total tumor volume (TTV) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM)., Methods: In this prospective cohort study, pre- and post-systemic treatment computed tomography (CT) scans of 259 patients with initially unresectable CRLM of the CAIRO5 trial (NCT02162563) were included. In total, 595 CT scans comprising 8,959 CRLM were divided into training (73%), validation (6.5%), and test sets (21%). Deep learning models were trained with ground truth segmentations of the liver and CRLM. TTV was calculated based on the CRLM segmentations. An external validation cohort was included, comprising 72 preoperative CT scans of patients with 112 resectable CRLM. Image segmentation evaluation metrics and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated., Results: In the test set (122 CT scans), the autosegmentation models showed a global Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.96 (liver) and 0.86 (CRLM). The corresponding median per-case DSC was 0.96 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.95-0.96) and 0.80 (IQR 0.67-0.87). For tumor segmentation, the intersection-over-union, precision, and recall were 0.75, 0.89, and 0.84, respectively. An excellent agreement was observed between the reference and automatically computed TTV for the test set (ICC 0.98) and external validation cohort (ICC 0.98). In the external validation, the global DSC was 0.82 and the median per-case DSC was 0.60 (IQR 0.29-0.76) for tumor segmentation., Conclusions: Deep learning autosegmentation models were able to segment the liver and CRLM automatically and accurately in patients with initially unresectable CRLM, enabling automatic TTV assessment in such patients., Relevance Statement: Automatic segmentation enables the assessment of total tumor volume in patients with colorectal liver metastases, with a high potential of decreasing radiologist's workload and increasing accuracy and consistency., Key Points: • Tumor response evaluation is time-consuming, manually performed, and ignores total tumor volume. • Automatic models can accurately segment tumors in patients with colorectal liver metastases. • Total tumor volume can be accurately calculated based on automatic segmentations., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

For patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM), the genetic mutation status is important in treatment selection and prognostication for survival outcomes. This study aims to investigate the relationship between radiomics imaging features and the genetic mutation status (KRAS mutation versus no mutation) in a large multicenter dataset of patients with CRLM and validate these findings in an external dataset. Patients with initially unresectable CRLM treated with systemic therapy of the randomized controlled CAIRO5 trial (NCT02162563) were included. All CRLM were semi-automatically segmented in pre-treatment CT scans and radiomics features were calculated from these segmentations. Additionally, data from the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI) were used for external validation. A total of 255 patients from the CAIRO5 trial were included. Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Gradient Boosting + LightGBM, and Ensemble machine-learning classifiers showed AUC scores of 0.77 (95%CI 0.62-0.92), 0.77 (95%CI 0.64-0.90), 0.72 (95%CI 0.57-0.87), and 0.86 (95%CI 0.76-0.95) in the internal test set. Validation of the models on the external dataset with 129 patients resulted in AUC scores of 0.47-0.56. Machine-learning models incorporating CT imaging features could identify the genetic mutation status in patients with CRLM with a good accuracy in the internal test set. However, in the external validation set, the models performed poorly. External validation of machine-learning models is crucial for the assessment of clinical applicability and should be mandatory in all future studies in the field of radiomics.

Objectives: Compare total tumor volume (TTV) response after systemic treatment to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST1.1) and assess the prognostic value of TTV change and RECIST1.1 for recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with colorectal liver-only metastases (CRLM)., Background: RECIST1.1 provides unidimensional criteria to evaluate tumor response to systemic therapy. Those criteria are accepted worldwide but are limited by interobserver variability and ignore potentially valuable information about TTV., Methods: Patients with initially unresectable CRLM receiving systemic treatment from the randomized, controlled CAIRO5 trial (NCT02162563) were included. TTV response was assessed using software specifically developed together with SAS analytics. Baseline and follow-up computed tomography (CT) scans were used to calculate RECIST1.1 and TTV response to systemic therapy. Different thresholds (10%, 20%, 40%) were used to define response of TTV as no standard currently exists. RFS was assessed in a subgroup of patients with secondarily resectable CRLM after induction treatment., Results: A total of 420 CT scans comprising 7820 CRLM in 210 patients were evaluated. In 30% to 50% (depending on chosen TTV threshold) of patients, discordance was observed between RECIST1.1 and TTV change. A TTV decrease of >40% was observed in 47 (22%) patients who had stable disease according to RECIST1.1. In 118 patients with secondarily resectable CRLM, RFS was shorter for patients with less than 10% TTV decrease compared with patients with more than 10% TTV decrease ( P = 0.015), while RECIST1.1 was not prognostic ( P = 0.821)., Conclusions: TTV response assessment shows prognostic potential in the evaluation of systemic therapy response in patients with CRLM., Competing Interests: C.J.A.P. has an advisory role for Nordic Pharma. This funding is not related to the current research. The remaining authors declare no potential conflicts of interest. The CAIRO5 study is supported by unrestricted scientific grants from Roche and Amgen. The funders had no role in the design, conduct, and submission of the study, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)