Prognostic analysis of curatively resected pancreatic cancer using harmonized positron emission tomography radiomic features

Abstract

Abstract Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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). Conclusions 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.