Table 2.
Summary of the percentage of patients fitting g and d models for the eight radiomics features discovered in the three signatures.
| Tumor burden |
Heterogeneity |
Boundaries |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Averagea | Uni | Bi | Volume | Averagea | Log X Entropy | Log Z Entropy | DWT1 HHL | GLCM IMC1 | GTDM contrast | Averagea | Shape SI4 | Sigmoid Slope | ||
| NIVOLUMAB | ||||||||||||||
| Patients analyzed, n (%) | Total included | 129 (81.6) | 122 (77.2) | 128 (81.0) | 137 (86.7) | 85 (54.1) | 62 (39.2) | 88 (55.7) | 93 (58.9) | 87 (55.1) | 97 (61.4) | 112 (70.6) | 114 (72.2) | 109 (69.0) |
| dx | 10 (6.6) | 11 (7) | 9 (5.7) | 11 (7) | 37 (23.4) | 33 (20.9) | 34 (21.5) | 39 (24.7) | 30 (19) | 49 (31) | 29 (18.4) | 20 (12.7) | 38 (24.1) | |
| gx | 77 (48.5) | 68 (43) | 75 (47.5) | 87 (55.1) | 34 (21.7) | 39 (24.7) | 35 (22.2) | 31 (19.6) | 30 (19) | 36 (22.8) | 63 (39.6) | 61 (38.6) | 64 (40.5) | |
| gd | 37 (23.6) | 40 (25.3) | 39 (24.7) | 33 (20.9) | 18 (11.7) | 23 (14.6) | 15 (9.5) | 21 (13.3) | 23 (14.6) | 10 (6.3) | 18 (11.1) | 29 (18.4) | 6 (3.8) | |
| Patients not analyzed, n (%) | Total excluded | 29 (18.4) | 36 (22.8) | 30 (19.0) | 21 (13.3) | 73 (45.9) | 96 (60.8) | 70 (44.3) | 65 (41.1) | 71 (44.9) | 61 (38.6) | 47 (29.4) | 44 (27.8) | 49 (31.0) |
| Erroneous data | – | – | – | – | 1 (0.5) | – | 4 (2.5) | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| No measurement | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.6) | 4 (2.2) | 1 (0.6) | 6 (3.8) | |
| Two evaluations ≤20% difference | 17 (10.8) | 24 (15.2) | 17 (10.8) | 10 (6.3) | 39 (24.8) | 42 (26.6) | 42 (26.6) | 39 (24.7) | 45 (28.5) | 28 (17.7) | 23 (14.6) | 36 (22.8) | 10 (6.3) | |
| Not fit | 11 (7.0) | 11 (7) | 12 (7.6) | 10 (6.3) | 25 (15.7) | 19 (12) | 23 (14.6) | 25 (15.8) | 25 (15.8) | 32 (20.3) | 20 (12.7) | 7 (4.4) | 33 (20.9) | |
| DOCETAXEL | ||||||||||||||
| Patients analyzed, n (%) | Total included | 49 (74.7) | 46 (69.7) | 53 (80.3) | 49 (74.2) | 36 (55.2) | 33 (50.0) | 33 (50.0) | 42 (63.6) | 30 (45.5) | 44 (66.7) | 41 (62.1) | 36 (54.5) | 46 (69.7) |
| dx | 3 (4.0) | 4 (6.1) | 2 (3) | 2 (3) | 14 (21.2) | 10 (15.2) | 13 (19.7) | 15 (22.7) | 9 (13.6) | 23 (34.8) | 8 (11.4) | 5 (7.6) | 10 (15.2) | |
| gx | 28 (42.9) | 23 (34.8) | 32 (48.5) | 30 (45.5) | 15 (22.4) | 15 (22.7) | 12 (18.2) | 20 (30.3) | 14 (21.2) | 13 (19.7) | 24 (35.6) | 15 (22.7) | 32 (48.5) | |
| gd | 17 (25.8) | 18 (27.3) | 18 (27.3) | 15 (22.7) | 7 (11.2) | 7 (10.6) | 8 (12.1) | 7 (10.6) | 7 (10.6) | 8 (12.1) | 9 (12.9) | 14 (21.2) | 3 (4.5) | |
| Patients not analyzed, n (%) | Total excluded | 17 (25.3) | 20 (30.3) | 13 (19.7) | 17 (25.8) | 30 (44.8) | 33 (50.0) | 33 (50.0) | 24 (36.4) | 36 (54.5) | 22 (33.3) | 25 (37.9) | 30 (45.5) | 20 (30.3) |
| Erroneous data | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| No measurement | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Two evaluations ≤20% difference | 12 (18.7) | 19 (28.8) | 8 (12.1) | 10 (15.2) | 20 (30) | 24 (36.4) | 23 (34.8) | 18 (27.3) | 24 (36.4) | 10 (15.2) | 14 (20.5) | 22 (33.3) | 5 (7.6) | |
| Not fit | 4 (6.6) | 1 (1.5) | 5 (7.6) | 7 (10.6) | 10 (14.9) | 9 (13.6) | 10 (15.2) | 6 (9.1) | 12 (18.2) | 12 (18.2) | 12 (17.4) | 8 (12.1) | 15 (22.7) | |
| GEFITINIB | ||||||||||||||
| Patients analyzed, n (%) | Total included | 5 (10.9) | 4 (8.7) | 5 (10.9) | 6 (13.0) | 3 (6.5) | 2 (4.3) | 3 (6.5) | 3 (6.5) | 3 (6.5) | 4 (8.7) | 4 (8.7) | 4 (8.7) | 4 (8.7) |
| dx | 0.7 (1.5) | 1 (2.2) | 1 (2.2) | — | 0.2 (0.4) | – | – | 1 (2.2) | – | – | 1 (2.2) | – | 2 (4.3) | |
| gx | 0.3 (0.7) | – | – | 1 (2.2) | 1.8 (3.9) | – | 3 (6.5) | 2 (4.3) | 2 (4.3) | 2 (4.3) | 1 (2.2) | 1 (2.2) | 1 (2.2) | |
| gd | 4 (8.7) | 3 (6.5) | 4 (8.7) | 5 (10.9) | 1 (2.2) | 2 (4.3) | – | – | 1 (2.2) | 2 (4.3) | 2 (4.3) | 3 (6.5) | 1 (2.2) | |
| Patients not analyzed, n (%) | Total excluded | 41 (89.1) | 42 (91.3) | 41 (89.1) | 40 (87.0) | 43 (93.5) | 44 (95.6) | 43 (93.5) | 43 (93.5) | 43 (93.5) | 42 (91.3) | 42 (91.3) | 42 (91.3) | 42 (91.3) |
| Erroneous data | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| No measurement | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.5 (1.1) | – | 1 (2.2) | |
| Two evaluations ≤20% difference | 0.7 (1.5) | 1 (2.2) | 1 (2.2) | – | 1 (2.2) | 1 (2.2) | 1 (2.2) | 1 (2.2) | 1 (2.2) | 1 (2.2) | – | – | – | |
| Not fit | 0.3 (0.7) | 1 (2.2) | – | – | 2 (4.3) | 3 (6.5) | 2 (4.3) | 2 (4.3) | 2 (4.3) | 1 (2.2) | 2 (4.3) | 2 (4.3) | 2 (4.3) | |
a
Average: average value for the features included in the categories tumor burden, heterogeneity, and boundaries. Uni (Unidimensional), Bi (Bidimensional). Computation of the rate of decay (d) and growth (g) of radiomics features using serial radiographics measurement. The eight features discovered in the three signatures (nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib) are generalized and applied to the three cohorts. In the cohort gefitinib, patients had only two evaluations, hence d and g values were not assessable in most patients.