Associations Between Somatic Mutations and Metabolic Imaging Phenotypes in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

PET-based radiomics have been used to noninvasively quantify the metabolic tumor phenotypes; however, little is known about the relationship between these phenotypes and underlying somatic mutations. This study assessed the association and predictive power of 18F-FDG PET–based radiomic features for somatic mutations in non–small cell lung cancer patients. Methods: Three hundred forty-eight non–small cell lung cancer patients underwent diagnostic 18F-FDG PET scans and were tested for genetic mutations. Thirteen percent (44/348) and 28% (96/348) of patients were found to harbor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or Kristen rat sarcoma viral (KRAS) mutations, respectively. We evaluated 21 imaging features: 19 independent radiomic features quantifying phenotypic traits and 2 conventional features (metabolic tumor volume and maximum SUV). The association between imaging features and mutation status (e.g., EGFR-positive [EGFR+] vs. EGFR-negative) was assessed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The ability of each imaging feature to predict mutation status was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and its significance was compared with a random guess (AUC = 0.5) using the Noether test. All P values were corrected for multiple hypothesis testing by controlling the false-discovery rate (FDRWilcoxon, FDRNoether) with a significance threshold of 10%. Results: Eight radiomic features and both conventional features were significantly associated with EGFR mutation status (FDRWilcoxon = 0.01–0.10). One radiomic feature (normalized inverse difference moment) outperformed all other features in predicting EGFR mutation status (EGFR+ vs. EGFR-negative, AUC = 0.67, FDRNoether = 0.0032), as well as differentiating between KRAS-positive and EGFR+ (AUC = 0.65, FDRNoether = 0.05). None of the features was associated with or predictive of KRAS mutation status (KRAS-positive vs. KRAS-negative, AUC = 0.50–0.54). Conclusion: Our results indicate that EGFR mutations may drive different metabolic tumor phenotypes that are captured in PET images, whereas KRAS-mutated tumors do not. This proof-of-concept study sheds light on genotype–phenotype interactions, using radiomics to capture and describe the phenotype, and may have potential for developing noninvasive imaging biomarkers for somatic mutations.

[1]  K. Polyak,et al.  Intra-tumour heterogeneity: a looking glass for cancer? , 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[2]  Jean YH Yang,et al.  Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics , 2004, Genome Biology.

[3]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[4]  Johan Wennerberg,et al.  2-Deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-D-glucose uptake and correlation to intratumoral heterogeneity. , 2007, Anticancer research.

[5]  S. Gabriel,et al.  EGFR Mutations in Lung Cancer: Correlation with Clinical Response to Gefitinib Therapy , 2004, Science.

[6]  K. Kinzler,et al.  Glucose Deprivation Contributes to the Development of KRAS Pathway Mutations in Tumor Cells , 2009, Science.

[7]  I. Buvat,et al.  Partial-Volume Effect in PET Tumor Imaging* , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  H. Varmus,et al.  KRAS Mutations and Primary Resistance of Lung Adenocarcinomas to Gefitinib or Erlotinib , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[9]  Gerald C. Chu,et al.  Oncogenic Kras Maintains Pancreatic Tumors through Regulation of Anabolic Glucose Metabolism , 2012, Cell.

[10]  M. Yun,et al.  Correlation Between 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Uptake and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations in Advanced Lung Cancer , 2012, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[11]  Yi-long Wu,et al.  Mutation incidence and coincidence in non small-cell lung cancer: meta-analyses by ethnicity and histology (mutMap) , 2013, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[12]  A. Gemma,et al.  F1000 highlights , 2010 .

[13]  S. Digumarthy,et al.  Role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in predicting epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. , 2011, The oncologist.

[14]  Robert Brian Jenkins,et al.  Molecular Testing Guideline for Selection of Lung Cancer Patients for EGFR and ALK Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology , 2013, Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

[15]  Eric Deutsch,et al.  Are RAS mutations predictive markers of resistance to standard chemotherapy? , 2009, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[16]  P. Lambin,et al.  Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach , 2014, Nature Communications.

[17]  M. Ladanyi,et al.  Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutation Testing in Lung Cancer: Searching for the Ideal Method , 2007, Clinical Cancer Research.

[18]  W. Pao,et al.  Chipping away at the lung cancer genome , 2012, Nature Medicine.

[19]  Andreas Rimner,et al.  Role of FDG-PET scans in staging, response assessment, and follow-up care for non-small cell lung cancer , 2013, Front. Oncol..

[20]  Robert J. Gillies,et al.  The effect of SUV discretization in quantitative FDG-PET Radiomics: the need for standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[21]  R. Boellaard Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[22]  Y. Huang,et al.  Differential roles of ERK and Akt pathways in regulation of EGFR-mediated signaling and motility in prostate cancer cells , 2010, Oncogene.

[23]  Vicky Goh,et al.  Radiomics in PET: principles and applications , 2014, Clinical and Translational Imaging.

[24]  J. Shih,et al.  Correlation of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography maximal standardized uptake value and EGFR mutations in advanced lung adenocarcinoma , 2010, Medical oncology.

[25]  Robert King,et al.  Textural features corresponding to textural properties , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[26]  M. Ladanyi,et al.  KRAS mutations are associated with solid growth pattern and tumor-infiltrating leukocytes in lung adenocarcinoma , 2013, Modern Pathology.

[27]  N. Girard,et al.  New driver mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2011, The Lancet. Oncology.

[28]  R. Jeraj,et al.  Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters , 2010, Acta oncologica.

[29]  J. Goo,et al.  Imaging Characteristics of Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer on CT and FDG-PET: Relationship with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Protein Expression Status and Survival , 2013, Korean journal of radiology.

[30]  A. Alavi,et al.  Akt Stimulates Aerobic Glycolysis in Cancer Cells , 2004, Cancer Research.

[31]  Mary M. Galloway,et al.  Texture analysis using gray level run lengths , 1974 .

[32]  W. Kim,et al.  FDG PET/CT metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis predict prognosis in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma , 2013, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.

[33]  N. Socci,et al.  Optimization of Dosing for EGFR-Mutant Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer with Evolutionary Cancer Modeling , 2011, Science Translational Medicine.

[34]  Dong Soo Lee,et al.  Recent Trends in PET Image Interpretations Using Volumetric and Texture-based Quantification Methods in Nuclear Oncology , 2014, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[35]  Kaori Togashi,et al.  Relationship between 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Accumulation and KRAS/BRAF Mutations in Colorectal Cancer , 2012, Clinical Cancer Research.

[36]  W. Hahn,et al.  Prospective enterprise-level molecular genotyping of a cohort of cancer patients. , 2014, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[37]  N. McGranahan,et al.  The causes and consequences of genetic heterogeneity in cancer evolution , 2013, Nature.

[38]  Bernard Fertil,et al.  Shape and Texture Indexes Application to Cell nuclei Classification , 2013, Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell..

[39]  S. Jung,et al.  FDG Uptake in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Is Not an Independent Predictor of EGFR or KRAS Mutation Status: A Retrospective Analysis of 206 Patients , 2015, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[40]  J. Hanley,et al.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. , 1983, Radiology.

[41]  Ross Berbeco,et al.  Comparison of Texture Features Derived from Static and Respiratory-Gated PET Images in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer , 2014, PloS one.

[42]  M. Schwaiger,et al.  Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[43]  P. A. Futreal,et al.  Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[44]  Jun Ma,et al.  Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. , 2011, The Lancet. Oncology.

[45]  N. Dubrawsky Cancer statistics , 1989, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[46]  P. Lambin,et al.  Stability of FDG-PET Radiomics features: An integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability , 2013, Acta oncologica.

[47]  Jae Cheol Lee,et al.  18F-FDG uptake and EGFR mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a single-institution retrospective analysis. , 2010, Lung cancer.

[48]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[49]  H. Aerts,et al.  Applications and limitations of radiomics , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.