Introduction to Special Issue of Radiology and Imaging of Cancer

Grassi²,

Fusco

et al. 2020

Front. Oncol.

Self Cite

This article provides an overview of imaging assessment of ablated pancreatic cancer. Only studies reporting radiological assessment on pancreatic ablated cancer were retained. We found 16 clinical studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Radiofrequency ablation and irreversible electroporation have become established treatment modalities because of their efficacy, low complication rates, and availability. Microwave Ablation (MWA) has several advantages over radiofrequency ablation (RFA), which may make it more attractive to treat pancreatic cancer. Electrochemotherapy (ECT) is a very interesting emerging technique, characterized by low complication rate and safety profile. According to the literature, the assessment of the effectiveness of ablative therapies is difficult by means of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria that are not suitable to evaluate the treatment response considering that are related to technique used, the timing of reassessment, and the imaging procedure being used to evaluate the efficacy. RFA causes various appearances on imaging in the ablated zone, correlating to the different effects, such as interstitial edema, hemorrhage, carbonization, necrosis, and fibrosis. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) causes the creation of pores within the cell membrane causing cell death. Experimental studies showed that Diffusion Weigthed Imaging (DWI) extracted parameters could be used to detect therapy effects. No data about functional assessment post MWA is available in literature. Morphologic data extracted by Computed Tomography (CT) or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) do not allow to differentiate partial, complete, or incomplete response after ECT conversely to functional parameters, obtained with Position Emission Tomography (PET), MRI, and CT.

Section: Radiomicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Ablation Therapy in Pancreatic Cancer: The Radiologist’s Challenge

Grassi²,

Fusco

et al. 2020

Front. Oncol.

Self Cite

“…It is inevitable to consider that by associating radiomic parameters with useful clinical and laboratory data, accurate and robust evidence-based clinical decision support systems (CDSS) could be established [15][16][17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary Report on Computed Tomography Radiomics Features as Biomarkers to Immunotherapy Selection in Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients

Fusco

Costa

et al. 2021

Cancers

Self Cite

Purpose: To assess the efficacy of radiomics features obtained by computed tomography (CT) examination as biomarkers in order to select patients with lung adenocarcinoma who would benefit from immunotherapy. Methods: Seventy-four patients (median age 63 years, range 42–86 years) with histologically confirmed lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy as first- or second-line therapy and who had baseline CT studies were enrolled in this approved retrospective study. As a control group, we selected 50 patients (median age 66 years, range 36–86 years) from 2005 to 2013 with histologically confirmed lung adenocarcinoma who underwent chemotherapy alone or in combination with targeted therapy. A total of 573 radiomic metrics were extracted: 14 features based on Hounsfield unit values specific for lung CT images; 66 first-order profile features based on intensity values; 43 second-order profile features based on lesion shape; 393 third-order profile features; and 57 features with higher-order profiles. Univariate and multivariate statistical analysis with pattern recognition approaches and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method were used to assess the capability of extracted radiomics features to predict overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) time. Results: A total of 38 patients (median age 61; range 41–78 years) with confirmed lung adenocarcinoma and subjected to immunotherapy satisfied inclusion criteria, and 50 patients in a control group were included in the analysis The shift in the center of mass of the lesion due to image intensity was significant both to predict OS in patients subjected to immunotherapy and to predict PFS in patients subjected to immunotherapy and in patients in the control group. With univariate analysis, low diagnostic accuracy was reached to stratify patients based on OS and PFS time. Regarding multivariate analysis, considering the robust (two morphological features, three textural features and three higher-order statistical metrics) application of the LASSO approach and all patients, a support vector machine reached the best results for stratifying patients based on OS (area under curve (AUC) of 0.89 and accuracy of 81.6%). Alternatively, considering the robust predictors (six textural features and one higher-order statistical metric) and application of the LASSO approach including all patients, a decision tree reached the best results for stratifying patients based on PFS time (AUC of 0.96 and accuracy of 94.7%). Conclusions: Specific radiomic features could be used to select patients with lung adenocarcinoma who would benefit from immunotherapy because a subset of imaging radiomic features useful to predict OS or PFS time were different between the control group and the immunotherapy group.

“…The possibility to connect radiological and clinical data in the present SR template could create the basis for a large database, allowing not only epidemiological statistical analyses, but also the building of radiomics models [29]. In this context, the added value of genomic data could be used to develop radio-genomics models, which would be helpful considering the highest level of personalized risk stratification and the advanced process of precision medicine [33][34][35].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computed Tomography Structured Reporting in the Staging of Lymphoma: A Delphi Consensus Proposal

Pradella

Cozzi

et al. 2021

JCM

Self Cite

Structured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports for lymphoma patients during the staging phase to improve communication between radiologists, members of multidisciplinary teams, and patients. A panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), was established. A modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. The Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. The final SR version was divided into four sections: (a) Patient Clinical Data, (b) Clinical Evaluation, (c) Imaging Protocol, and (d) Report, including n = 13 items in the “Patient Clinical Data” section, n = 8 items in the “Clinical Evaluation” section, n = 9 items in the “Imaging Protocol” section, and n = 32 items in the “Report” section. Overall, 62 items were included in the final version of the SR. A dedicated section of significant images was added as part of the report. In the first Delphi round, all sections received more than a good rating (≥3). The overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.4 (range 1–5) and 1524 (mean value of 101.6 and standard deviation of 11.8). The Cα correlation coefficient was 0.89 in the first round. In the second Delphi round, all sections received more than an excellent rating (≥4). The overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for structured report were 4.9 (range 3–5) and 1694 (mean value of 112.9 and standard deviation of 4.0). The Cα correlation coefficient was 0.87 in this round. The highest overall means value, highest sum of scores of the panelists, and smallest standard deviation values of the evaluations in this round reflect the increase of the internal consistency and agreement among experts in the second round compared to first round. The accurate statement of imaging data given to referring physicians is critical for patient care; the information contained affects both the decision-making process and the subsequent treatment. The radiology report is the most important source of clinical imaging information. It conveys critical information about the patient’s health and the radiologist’s interpretation of medical findings. It also communicates information to the referring physicians and records this information for future clinical and research use. The present SR was generated based on a multi-round consensus-building Delphi exercise and uses standardized terminology and structures, in order to adhere to diagnostic/therapeutic recommendations and facilitate enrolment in clinical trials, to reduce any ambiguity that may arise from non-conventional language, and to enable better communication between radiologists and clinicians.