This analysis develops MRI-based radiomics models for predicting responses to EGFR-TKIs in patients with metastatic NSCLC, indicating enhanced accuracy for clinical use.
The early prediction of treatment response for EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) is critical to guiding therapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to develop a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics model based on intratumoral and peritumoral regions to assess the response of patients with metastatic NSCLC to EGFR-TKIs. We retrospectively recruited 418 and 160 patients with brain metastases (BMs) from EGFR-mutant NSCLC who received EGFR-TKI therapy from hospital 1 and hospital 2, respectively. The intratumoral region of interest (ROI_I) was manually segmented for contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1-CE) imaging. Five peritumoral ROIs (ROI_P) at 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 10-mm expansions along ROI_I were defined, and combined ROIs (ROI_I and ROI_P) were automatically generated. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) was used to select the most predictive features, which was followed by the construction of radiomics models (the ROI_I model, ROI_P model, and the combined model). The area under the curve (AUC) and Shapley method were used to validate the performance of the models and explain the best models. The combined intratumoral and peritumoral 6-mm regions achieved the best performance, with AUCs of 0.913 and 0.826 in the training and test cohort. The ROI_I model also demonstrated a degree of classification power in both the training and test cohort, with AUCs of 0.868 and 0.762, respectively. As compared to models consisting of intratumoral or peritumoral radiomics features alone, the model combining intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics features achieved better performance in predicting therapeutic response to EGFR-TKIs. The optimal combined region model with 6-mm peritumoral expansion along the tumor may benefit the clinical treatment of NSCLC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: