A new method for the high-precision assessment of tumor changes in response to treatment

Motivation: Imaging demonstrates that preclinical and human tumors are heterogeneous, i.e. a single tumor can exhibit multiple regions that behave differently during both development and also in response to treatment. The large variations observed in control group, tumors can obscure detection of significant therapeutic effects due to the ambiguity in attributing causes of change. This can hinder development of effective therapies due to limitations in experimental design rather than due to therapeutic failure. An improved method to model biological variation and heterogeneity in imaging signals is described. Specifically, linear Poisson modeling (LPM) evaluates changes in apparent diffusion co‐efficient between baseline and 72 h after radiotherapy, in two xenograft models of colorectal cancer. The statistical significance of measured changes is compared to those attainable using a conventional t‐test analysis on basic apparent diffusion co‐efficient distribution parameters. Results: When LPMs were applied to treated tumors, the LPMs detected highly significant changes. The analyses were significant for all tumors, equating to a gain in power of 4‐fold (i.e. equivalent to having a sample size 16 times larger), compared with the conventional approach. In contrast, highly significant changes are only detected at a cohort level using t‐tests, restricting their potential use within personalized medicine and increasing the number of animals required during testing. Furthermore, LPM enabled the relative volumes of responding and non‐responding tissue to be estimated for each xenograft model. Leave‐one‐out analysis of the treated xenografts provided quality control and identified potential outliers, raising confidence in LPM data at clinically relevant sample sizes. Availability and implementation: TINA Vision open source software is available from www.tina‐vision.net. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

[1]  M. R. Kibby Spreadsheet statistics , 1986, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[2]  Mark J. Ratain,et al.  Tumour heterogeneity in the clinic , 2013, Nature.

[3]  N. Just,et al.  Improving tumour heterogeneity MRI assessment with histograms , 2014, British Journal of Cancer.

[4]  Neil A. Thacker,et al.  Linear Poisson Models: A Pattern Recognition Solution to the Histogram Composition Problem , 2014 .

[5]  J. Gibbs Mechanism-based target identification and drug discovery in cancer research. , 2000, Science.

[6]  S. Nicosia,et al.  One mouse, one patient paradigm: New avatars of personalized cancer therapy. , 2014, Cancer letters.

[7]  M. de Jong,et al.  Biomarkers in preclinical cancer imaging , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[8]  Hongbo Mu,et al.  An ensemble approach to protein fold classification by integration of template‐based assignment and support vector machine classifier , 2016, Bioinform..

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

[10]  M. Jong,et al.  Imaging preclinical tumour models: improving translational power , 2014, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[11]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  Toward understanding and exploiting tumor heterogeneity , 2015, Nature Medicine.

[12]  N. Carragher,et al.  Developments in preclinical cancer imaging: innovating the discovery of therapeutics , 2014, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[13]  P. Choyke,et al.  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. , 2009, Neoplasia.

[14]  Paul Workman,et al.  Minimally invasive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic technologies in hypothesis-testing clinical trials of innovative therapies. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  G. Parker,et al.  Imaging Intratumor Heterogeneity: Role in Therapy Response, Resistance, and Clinical Outcome , 2014, Clinical Cancer Research.

[16]  J. O'Connor,et al.  Cancer heterogeneity and imaging. , 2017, Seminars in cell & developmental biology.

[17]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[18]  Ronald A. DePinho,et al.  Model organisms: The mighty mouse: genetically engineered mouse models in cancer drug development , 2006, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[19]  Pierre Comon,et al.  Independent component analysis, A new concept? , 1994, Signal Process..

[20]  Bian Wu,et al.  DeepEM3D: approaching human‐level performance on 3D anisotropic EM image segmentation , 2017, Bioinform..

[21]  Neil A. Thacker,et al.  Quantifying biological samples using Linear Poisson Independent Component Analysis for MALDI-ToF mass spectra , 2017, Bioinform..

[22]  F. J. Anscombe,et al.  THE TRANSFORMATION OF POISSON, BINOMIAL AND NEGATIVE-BINOMIAL DATA , 1948 .

[23]  N. Thacker,et al.  Automated Quantitative Measurements and Associated Error Covariances for Planetary Image Analysis , 2015 .

[24]  G. Heppner Tumor heterogeneity. , 1984, Cancer research.

[25]  J. Clohessy,et al.  Mouse hospital and co-clinical trial project—from bench to bedside , 2015, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[26]  Hyeon-Eui Kim,et al.  Deep mining heterogeneous networks of biomedical linked data to predict novel drug‐target associations , 2017, Bioinform..

[27]  A. Balmain,et al.  Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research , 2010, British Journal of Cancer.

[28]  A. Madabhushi,et al.  Histopathological Image Analysis: A Review , 2009, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.

[29]  Cornelius Faber,et al.  Apparent diffusion coefficient is highly reproducible on preclinical imaging systems: Evidence from a seven‐center multivendor study , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.