It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Among non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with therapeutically targetable tumor mutations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), not all patients respond to targeted therapy. Combining circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA), clinical variables, and radiomic phenotypes may improve prediction of EGFR-targeted therapy outcomes for NSCLC. This single-center retrospective study included 40 EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC patients treated with EGFR-targeted therapy. ctDNA data included number of mutations and detection of EGFR T790M. Clinical data included age, smoking status, and ECOG performance status. Baseline chest CT scans were analyzed to extract 429 radiomic features from each primary tumor. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering was used to group tumors into phenotypes. Kaplan–Meier (K–M) curves and Cox proportional hazards regression were modeled for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Likelihood ratio test (LRT) was used to compare fit between models. Among 40 patients (73% women, median age 62 years), consensus clustering identified two radiomic phenotypes. For PFS, the model combining radiomic phenotypes with ctDNA and clinical variables had c-statistic of 0.77 and a better fit (LRT p = 0.01) than the model with clinical and ctDNA variables alone with a c-statistic of 0.73. For OS, adding radiomic phenotypes resulted in c-statistic of 0.83 versus 0.80 when using clinical and ctDNA variables (LRT p = 0.08). Both models showed separation of K–M curves dichotomized by median prognostic score (p < 0.005). Combining radiomic phenotypes, ctDNA, and clinical variables may enhance precision oncology approaches to managing advanced non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiology, Philadelphia, USA (GRID:grid.25879.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8972)
2 University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, USA (GRID:grid.25879.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8972)
3 University of Pennsylvania, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA (GRID:grid.25879.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8972)
4 University of Pennsylvania, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Philadelphia, USA (GRID:grid.25879.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8972)
5 University of Pennsylvania, Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Department of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA (GRID:grid.25879.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8972)
6 University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiology, Philadelphia, USA (GRID:grid.25879.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8972); University of Pennsylvania, Computational Biomarker Imaging Group (CBIG), Department of Radiology, Philadelphia, USA (GRID:grid.25879.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8972)




