Supplement
eFigure 1: Assessing agreement in SUV measurement between the reads performed at the ACRIN Core Lab and the secondary reads performed using the RT_Image program at Stanford.
eFigure 2. Overall survival (OS) in the high tMTV-pre group excluding patients that received sub-therapeutic doses of radiation.
eFigure 3.Local-regional control (LC) in the high tMTV-pre group excluding patients that received sub-therapeutic doses of radiation.
eTable 1: Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model for predicting overall survival (OS), including the interaction effect between radiation dose and tMTV-pre.
eTable 2: Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model using tMTV-pre, along with potential confounders, to predict local-regional control (LC).
eTable 3: Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model using tMTV-post, along with potential confounders, to predict overall survival (OS).
eFigure 1: Assessing agreement in SUV measurement between thereads performed at the ACRIN Core Lab and the secondary reads performed using the RT_Image program at Stanford. (A) Scatterplot of pre-treatment SUVpeak (solid line corresponds to the 45-degree line), B) Scatterplot of pre-treatment SUVmax (solid line corresponds to the 45-degree line). ‘CCC’ corresponds to the concordance correlation coefficient with 95% confidence interval. ‘Mean difference’ corresponds to the difference between the measures (RT_Image secondaryread – ACRIN Core Lab read) with 95% confidence interval.
eFigure 2. Overall survival (OS) in the high tMTV-pre group excluding patients that received sub-therapeutic doses of radiation. (A) High tMTV-pre group patients are divided based on radiation dose, where patients with dose <56 Gy are excluded. (B) High tMTV-pre group patients are divided based on radiation dose, where patients with dose <60 Gy are excluded.
eFigure 3.Local-regional control (LC) in the high tMTV-pre group excluding patients that received sub-therapeutic doses of radiation. (A) High tMTV-pre group patients are divided based on radiation dose, where patients with dose <56 Gy are excluded. (B) High tMTV-pre group patients are divided based on radiation dose, where patients with dose <60 Gy are excluded.
eTable 1: Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model for predicting overall survival (OS), including the interaction effect between radiation dose and tMTV-pre.
Parameter / Estimate(SE) / Hazard ratio
(95% CI) / P-value
Age (years): continuous / 0.014 (0.010) / 1.01 (0.995, 1.03) / 0.151
Gender: female (vs. male) / 0.148 (0.176) / 1.16 (0.82, 1.64) / 0.400
Baseline performance status: ambulatory, capable of light work (vs. fully active) / 0.986 (0.319) / - 1 / 0.002 †
Baseline performance status * Time (months) / -0.030 (0.014) / - 1 / 0.036
Baseline clinical stage: IIIB (vs. IIB/IIIA) / 0.127 (0.177) / 1.14 (0.80, 1.61) / 0.473
Radiation dose (Gy): continuous / -0.004 (0.013) / - 2 / 0.754
Chemotherapy regimen: Cisplatin + Etoposide (vs. Carboplatin + Paclitaxel) / -0.080 (0.261) / 0.92 (0.55, 1.54) / 0.758
Chemotherapy regimen: Other (vs. Carboplatin + Paclitaxel) / 0.097 (0.188) / 1.10 (0.76, 1.59) / 0.606
Pre-treatment SUVpeak: continuous / -0.002 (0.011) / 0.998 (0.98, 1.02) / 0.843
Pre-treatment number of hypermetabolic lesions: continuous / 0.119 (0.059) / - 1 / 0.043
Pre-treatment number of hypermetabolic lesions * Time (months) / -0.007 (0.004) / - 1 / 0.070
tMTV-pre: continuous 3 / 0.338 (0.099) / - 2 / <0.001 †
tMTV-pre* Radiation dose (Gy): Statistical interaction / -0.005 (0.002) / - 2 / 0.002 †
1 A single hazard ratio is not reported as the specified covariate is time-varying, thus implying that the hazard ratio decreases over time.
2 Main effects cannot be interpreted individually in the presence of statistical interaction.
3 The reported hazard ratio corresponds to a 10-mL increase in tMTV.
† P-value is below the statistical significance threshold of 0.017 (adjusted for multiple comparisons).
Abbreviations: SE=standard error; CI=confidence interval; tMTV-pre=pre-treatment total MTV
eTable 2: Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model using tMTV-pre, along with potential confounders, to predict local-regional control (LC).
Parameter / Estimate(SE) / Hazard ratio
(95% CI) / P-value
Age (years): continuous / 0.015 (0.014) / 1.02 (0.99, 1.04) / 0.287
Gender: female (vs. male) / 0.274 (0.244) / 1.32 (0.82, 2.12) / 0.262
Baseline performance status: ambulatory, capable of light work (vs. fully active) / 1.160 (0.509) / - 1 / 0.023
Baseline performance status * Time (months) / -0.096 (0.039) / - 1 / 0.013 †
Baseline clinical stage: IIIB (vs. IIB/IIIA) / 0.429 (0.253) / 1.54 (0.94, 2.52) / 0.090
Radiation dose (Gy): continuous / -0.049 (0.016) / 0.95 (0.92, 0.98) / 0.003 †
Chemotherapy regimen: Cisplatin + Etoposide (vs. Carboplatin + Paclitaxel) / -0.732 (0.447) / 0.48 (0.20, 1.16) / 0.101
Chemotherapy regimen: Other (vs. Carboplatin + Paclitaxel) / -0.031 (0.262) / 0.97 (0.58, 1.62) / 0.907
Pre-treatment SUVpeak: continuous / 0.014 (0.015) / 1.01 (0.99, 1.04) / 0.328
Pre-treatment number of hypermetabolic lesions: continuous / 0.079 (0.111) / - 1 / 0.478
Pre-treatment number of hypermetabolic lesions * Time (months) / -0.017 (0.010) / - 1 / 0.077
tMTV-pre: continuous 2 / 0.059 (0.018) / - 1 / 0.001 †
tMTV-pre * Time (months) / -0.003 (0.002) / - 1 / 0.083
1 A single hazard ratio is not reported as the specified covariate is time-varying, thus implying that the hazard ratio decreases over time.
2 The reported hazard ratio corresponds to a 10-mL increase in tMTV-pre.
† P-value is below the statistical significance threshold of 0.017 (adjusted for multiple comparisons).
Abbreviations: SE=standard error; CI=confidence interval; tMTV-pre=pre-treatment total MTV
eTable 3: Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model using tMTV-post, along with potential confounders, to predict overall survival (OS).
Parameter / Estimate(SE) / Hazard ratio
(95% CI) / P-value
Age (years): continuous / 0.023 (0.012) / 1.02 (1.00, 1.05) / 0.054
Gender: female (vs. male) / 0.108 (0.196) / 1.11 (0.76, 1.64) / 0.582
Baseline performance status: ambulatory, capable of light work (vs. fully active) / 0.842 (0.313) / - 1 / 0.007 †
Baseline performance status * Time (months) / -0.031 (0.017) / - 1 / 0.072
Baseline clinical stage: IIIB (vs. IIB/IIIA) / 0.155 (0.193) / 1.17 (0.80, 1.71) / 0.424
Radiation dose (Gy): continuous / -0.020 (0.023) / 0.98 (0.94, 1.03) / 0.377
Chemotherapy regimen: Cisplatin + Etoposide (vs. Carboplatin + Paclitaxel) / -0.053 (0.318) / 0.95 (0.51, 1.77) / 0.867
Chemotherapy regimen: Other (vs. Carboplatin + Paclitaxel) / 0.162 (0.209) / 1.18 (0.78, 1.77) / 0.440
Post-treatment SUVpeak: continuous / 0.073 (0.022) / 1.08 (1.03, 1.12) / 0.001 †
Post-treatment number of hypermetabolic lesions: continuous / 0.018 (0.029) / 1.02 (0.96, 1.08) / 0.534
tMTV-post: continuous 2 / 0.005 (0.026) / 1.01 (0.96, 1.06) / 0.843
1 A single hazard ratio is not reported as the specified covariate is time-varying, thus implying that the hazard ratio decreases over time.
2 The reported hazard ratio corresponds to a 10-mL increase in tMTV-post.
† P-value is below the statistical significance threshold of 0.017 (adjusted for multiple comparisons).
Abbreviations: SE=standard error; CI=confidence interval; tMTV-post=post-treatment total MTV
1