Cargando…

Imaging response assessment for predicting outcomes after bioselection chemotherapy in larynx cancer: A secondary analysis of two prospective trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Bioselection with induction chemotherapy in larynx cancer is associated with excellent larynx preservation and disease-specific survival but requires visual inspection of the primary tumor. We retrospectively compare clinical and imaging response in bioselected patients to de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gharzai, Laila A., Pakela, Julia, Jaworski, Elizabeth M., El Naqa, Issam, Shah, Jennifer, Hawkins, Peter G., Spector, Matthew E., Bradford, Carol R., Chinn, Steven B., Malloy, Kelly, Kupfer, Robbi, Shuman, Andrew, Morrison, Robert, Stucken, Chaz L., Rosko, Andrew, Prince, Mark E., Casper, Keith, Eisbruch, Avraham, Wolf, Gregory, Swiecicki, Paul L., Worden, Francis, Mierzwa, Michelle L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8728046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35024462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2021.12.006
_version_ 1784626646496575488
author Gharzai, Laila A.
Pakela, Julia
Jaworski, Elizabeth M.
El Naqa, Issam
Shah, Jennifer
Hawkins, Peter G.
Spector, Matthew E.
Bradford, Carol R.
Chinn, Steven B.
Malloy, Kelly
Kupfer, Robbi
Shuman, Andrew
Morrison, Robert
Stucken, Chaz L.
Rosko, Andrew
Prince, Mark E.
Casper, Keith
Eisbruch, Avraham
Wolf, Gregory
Swiecicki, Paul L.
Worden, Francis
Mierzwa, Michelle L.
author_facet Gharzai, Laila A.
Pakela, Julia
Jaworski, Elizabeth M.
El Naqa, Issam
Shah, Jennifer
Hawkins, Peter G.
Spector, Matthew E.
Bradford, Carol R.
Chinn, Steven B.
Malloy, Kelly
Kupfer, Robbi
Shuman, Andrew
Morrison, Robert
Stucken, Chaz L.
Rosko, Andrew
Prince, Mark E.
Casper, Keith
Eisbruch, Avraham
Wolf, Gregory
Swiecicki, Paul L.
Worden, Francis
Mierzwa, Michelle L.
author_sort Gharzai, Laila A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Bioselection with induction chemotherapy in larynx cancer is associated with excellent larynx preservation and disease-specific survival but requires visual inspection of the primary tumor. We retrospectively compare clinical and imaging response in bioselected patients to develop predictive models of surgeon-assessed response (SR), laryngectomy-free survival (LFS), and overall survival (OS) in bioselected patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a secondary analysis of patients on two single-institution bioselection trials, model building used a regularized regression model (elastic-net) and applied nested cross-validation. Logistic regression-based model was used to predict SR and Cox proportional hazard-based models were used to predict LFS and OS. RESULTS: In 115 patients with a median age of 57 years, most patients had supraglottic tumors (73.0%) and T3/T4 disease (94.8%). Definitive treatment was chemoradiation in 76.5% and laryngectomy in 23.5%. Change in primary tumor (OR = 5.78, p < 0.001) and N-classification (OR = 1.64, p = 0.003) predicted SR (AUC 0.847). Change in tumor volume (HR = 0.58, p < 0.001) predicted LFS (c-index 0.724). N-classification (HR = 1.48, p = 0.04) and pre-chemotherapy tumor volume (HR = 1.30, p = 0.174) predicted OS (c-index 0.552). CONCLUSIONS: Imaging offers a non-invasive opportunity to evaluate response to induction chemotherapy, complementary to surgeon assessment. Further evaluation of approaches to bioselection that optimize generalizability of this paradigm are needed, and clinical trials utilizing imaging to predict outcomes including LFS are warranted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8728046
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87280462022-01-11 Imaging response assessment for predicting outcomes after bioselection chemotherapy in larynx cancer: A secondary analysis of two prospective trials Gharzai, Laila A. Pakela, Julia Jaworski, Elizabeth M. El Naqa, Issam Shah, Jennifer Hawkins, Peter G. Spector, Matthew E. Bradford, Carol R. Chinn, Steven B. Malloy, Kelly Kupfer, Robbi Shuman, Andrew Morrison, Robert Stucken, Chaz L. Rosko, Andrew Prince, Mark E. Casper, Keith Eisbruch, Avraham Wolf, Gregory Swiecicki, Paul L. Worden, Francis Mierzwa, Michelle L. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Original Research Article BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Bioselection with induction chemotherapy in larynx cancer is associated with excellent larynx preservation and disease-specific survival but requires visual inspection of the primary tumor. We retrospectively compare clinical and imaging response in bioselected patients to develop predictive models of surgeon-assessed response (SR), laryngectomy-free survival (LFS), and overall survival (OS) in bioselected patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a secondary analysis of patients on two single-institution bioselection trials, model building used a regularized regression model (elastic-net) and applied nested cross-validation. Logistic regression-based model was used to predict SR and Cox proportional hazard-based models were used to predict LFS and OS. RESULTS: In 115 patients with a median age of 57 years, most patients had supraglottic tumors (73.0%) and T3/T4 disease (94.8%). Definitive treatment was chemoradiation in 76.5% and laryngectomy in 23.5%. Change in primary tumor (OR = 5.78, p < 0.001) and N-classification (OR = 1.64, p = 0.003) predicted SR (AUC 0.847). Change in tumor volume (HR = 0.58, p < 0.001) predicted LFS (c-index 0.724). N-classification (HR = 1.48, p = 0.04) and pre-chemotherapy tumor volume (HR = 1.30, p = 0.174) predicted OS (c-index 0.552). CONCLUSIONS: Imaging offers a non-invasive opportunity to evaluate response to induction chemotherapy, complementary to surgeon assessment. Further evaluation of approaches to bioselection that optimize generalizability of this paradigm are needed, and clinical trials utilizing imaging to predict outcomes including LFS are warranted. Elsevier 2021-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8728046/ /pubmed/35024462 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2021.12.006 Text en © 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Gharzai, Laila A.
Pakela, Julia
Jaworski, Elizabeth M.
El Naqa, Issam
Shah, Jennifer
Hawkins, Peter G.
Spector, Matthew E.
Bradford, Carol R.
Chinn, Steven B.
Malloy, Kelly
Kupfer, Robbi
Shuman, Andrew
Morrison, Robert
Stucken, Chaz L.
Rosko, Andrew
Prince, Mark E.
Casper, Keith
Eisbruch, Avraham
Wolf, Gregory
Swiecicki, Paul L.
Worden, Francis
Mierzwa, Michelle L.
Imaging response assessment for predicting outcomes after bioselection chemotherapy in larynx cancer: A secondary analysis of two prospective trials
title Imaging response assessment for predicting outcomes after bioselection chemotherapy in larynx cancer: A secondary analysis of two prospective trials
title_full Imaging response assessment for predicting outcomes after bioselection chemotherapy in larynx cancer: A secondary analysis of two prospective trials
title_fullStr Imaging response assessment for predicting outcomes after bioselection chemotherapy in larynx cancer: A secondary analysis of two prospective trials
title_full_unstemmed Imaging response assessment for predicting outcomes after bioselection chemotherapy in larynx cancer: A secondary analysis of two prospective trials
title_short Imaging response assessment for predicting outcomes after bioselection chemotherapy in larynx cancer: A secondary analysis of two prospective trials
title_sort imaging response assessment for predicting outcomes after bioselection chemotherapy in larynx cancer: a secondary analysis of two prospective trials
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8728046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35024462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2021.12.006
work_keys_str_mv AT gharzailailaa imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT pakelajulia imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT jaworskielizabethm imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT elnaqaissam imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT shahjennifer imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT hawkinspeterg imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT spectormatthewe imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT bradfordcarolr imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT chinnstevenb imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT malloykelly imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT kupferrobbi imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT shumanandrew imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT morrisonrobert imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT stuckenchazl imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT roskoandrew imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT princemarke imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT casperkeith imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT eisbruchavraham imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT wolfgregory imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT swiecickipaull imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT wordenfrancis imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials
AT mierzwamichellel imagingresponseassessmentforpredictingoutcomesafterbioselectionchemotherapyinlarynxcancerasecondaryanalysisoftwoprospectivetrials