4.6 Article

Prognostic Value of Pretreatment Radiomic Features of 18F-FDG PET in Patients With Hodgkin Lymphoma

Journal

CLINICAL NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Volume 44, Issue 10, Pages E559-E565

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002732

Keywords

FDG; Hodgkin lymphoma; PET; prognosis; radiomics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose This study investigated whether a radiomic analysis of pretreatment F-18-FDG PET can predict prognosis in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Methods Forty-two patients who were diagnosed as having HL and underwent pretreatment F-18-FDG PET scans were retrospectively enrolled. For each patient, we extracted 450 radiomic features from PET images. The prognostic significance of the clinical and radiomic features was assessed in relation to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Receiver operating characteristic curve, Cox proportional hazards regression, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to examine the potential independent predictors and to evaluate the predictive value. Results Intensity nonuniformity extracted from a gray-level run-length matrix and the Ann Arbor stage were independently associated with PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 22.8, P < 0.001; HR = 7.6, P = 0.024) and OS (HR = 14.5, P = 0.012; HR = 8.5, P = 0.048), respectively. In addition, SUV kurtosis was an independent prognosticator for PFS (HR = 6.6, P = 0.026). We devised a prognostic scoring system based on these 3 risk predictors. The proposed scoring system further improved the risk stratification of the current staging classification (P < 0.001). Conclusions The radiomic feature intensity nonuniformity is an independent prognostic predictor of PFS and OS in patients with HL. We devised a prognostic scoring system, which may be more beneficial for patient risk stratification in guiding therapy compared with the current Ann Arbor staging system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available