David A. Hormuth, II

Research Scientist | Biomedical Engineering + Imaging Science > > Computational Oncology

Abstract PS13-18: Predicting breast cancer response to neoadjuvant therapies using a mathematical model individualized with patient-specific magnetic resonance imaging data: Preliminary Results


Journal article


Angela M. Jarrett, D. Hormuth, A. Syed, Chengyue Wu, J. Virostko, A. Sorace, J. DiCarlo, J. Kowalski, D. Patt, B. Goodgame, Sarah Avery, T. Yankeelov
2021

Semantic Scholar DOI
Cite

Cite

APA   Click to copy
Jarrett, A. M., Hormuth, D., Syed, A., Wu, C., Virostko, J., Sorace, A., … Yankeelov, T. (2021). Abstract PS13-18: Predicting breast cancer response to neoadjuvant therapies using a mathematical model individualized with patient-specific magnetic resonance imaging data: Preliminary Results.


Chicago/Turabian   Click to copy
Jarrett, Angela M., D. Hormuth, A. Syed, Chengyue Wu, J. Virostko, A. Sorace, J. DiCarlo, et al. “Abstract PS13-18: Predicting Breast Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Therapies Using a Mathematical Model Individualized with Patient-Specific Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data: Preliminary Results” (2021).


MLA   Click to copy
Jarrett, Angela M., et al. Abstract PS13-18: Predicting Breast Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Therapies Using a Mathematical Model Individualized with Patient-Specific Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data: Preliminary Results. 2021.


BibTeX   Click to copy

@article{angela2021a,
  title = {Abstract PS13-18: Predicting breast cancer response to neoadjuvant therapies using a mathematical model individualized with patient-specific magnetic resonance imaging data: Preliminary Results},
  year = {2021},
  journal = {},
  author = {Jarrett, Angela M. and Hormuth, D. and Syed, A. and Wu, Chengyue and Virostko, J. and Sorace, A. and DiCarlo, J. and Kowalski, J. and Patt, D. and Goodgame, B. and Avery, Sarah and Yankeelov, T.}
}

Abstract

Background: This study evaluates the ability to predict the response of locally advanced breast cancers to neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) using patient-specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data and a biophysical mathematical model. The 3D mathematical model consists of three parts: tumor cell proliferation, tumor spread (diffusion), and treatment. In particular, the tumor cells proliferate according to logistic growth, and the diffusion term is coupled to the mechanical properties of the surrounding fibroglandular and adipose tissues to inform individual tumor growth patterns (specific to each patient’s anatomy). The model’s treatment term accounts for tumor cell reduction according to approximate local drug delivery for each patient. Methods: Patients (N = 21) with intermediate to high grade invasive breast cancers with varying receptor status, who were eligible for NAT as a component of their clinical care, were recruited. Each patient was treated with standard-of-care consisting of one or two NAT regimens in sequence followed by surgical resection of any residual tumor. MRI data are acquired at four time points: 1) prior to initiation of NAT, 2) after 1 cycle of NAT, 3) after 2-4 cycles of NAT, and 4) 1 cycle after scan 3. The MRI data is processed and evaluated using our semi-automated pipeline. Specifically, diffusion-weighted MRI data is utilized to characterize the cellularity throughout the tumor tissue, and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-) MRI data is used to segment the breast tissue and analyze the local drug delivery using pharmacokinetic analysis and population-derived plasma curves of drug concentrations. The model’s predictive ability is assessed using three different strategies. First, the model is calibrated using each patient’s first two scans to enable predictions of the total tumor cellularity, volume, and longest axis that are directly compared to the values measured from their third scan. Second, the model’s predictions for tumor response are compared to the corresponding response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) results. Third, the model is re-calibrated using scans 3 and 4 and simulated to the time of surgery to compare the model’s predictions to each patient’s response status determined by surgical pathology. Results: Calibrating the model with MRI data for one cycle of therapy yields predictions strongly correlated with tumor response measured from each patient’s third scan, concordance correlation coefficients of 0.91, 0.90, and 0.86 for total cellularity, volume, and longest axis, respectively (p l 0.01, N = 18). The model’s predictions are significantly (p l 0.01) correlated with tumor response as designated by RECIST for the cohort. Specifically, the model predicts greater percent reduction in the longest axis for the RECIST designated responder group (i.e., complete response and partial response) compared to non-responders. At the time of surgery, the model predicts changes in total tumor cellularity from baseline that are significantly (p l 0.01) correlated with pathological response status—an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.92 and a sensitivity and specificity of 1.0 and 0.74, respectively. Discussion: These preliminary results suggest that this clinical-mathematical approach can be predictive of tumor response very early in the course of NAT on a patient-specific basis. Moreover, the study was performed in the community-care setting across a heterogenous group of patients, indicating the approach may be practical for wide-spread application. NCI U01 CA174706, NCI U01 CA154602, CPRIT RR160005, ACS-RSG-18-006-01-CCE, R01CA240589, NCI-U24CA226110, CPRIT RR160093 Citation Format: Angela M Jarrett, David A. Hormuth, II, Anum K Syed, Chengyue Wu, John Virostko, Anna G Sorace, Julie C DiCarlo, Jeanne Kowalski, Debra Patt, Boone Goodgame, Sarah Avery, Thomas E Yankeelov. Predicting breast cancer response to neoadjuvant therapies using a mathematical model individualized with patient-specific magnetic resonance imaging data: Preliminary Results [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS13-18.


Share



Follow this website


You need to create an Owlstown account to follow this website.


Sign up

Already an Owlstown member?

Log in