BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The prediction of prognosis in HGGs is poor in the majority of patients. Our aim was to test whether multivariate prediction models constructed by machine-learning methods provide a more accurate predictor of prognosis in HGGs than histopathologic classification. The prediction of survival was based on DTI and rCBV measurements as an adjunct to conventional imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The relationship of survival to 55 variables, including clinical parameters (age, sex), categoric or continuous tumor descriptors (eg, tumor location, extent of resection, multifocality, edema), and imaging characteristics in ROIs, was analyzed in a multivariate fashion by using data-mining techniques. A variable selection method was applied to identify the overall most important variables. The analysis was performed on 74 HGGs (18 anaplastic gliomas WHO grades III/IV and 56 GBMs or gliosarcomas WHO grades IV/IV). RESULTS: Five variables were identified as the most significant, including the extent of resection, mass effect, volume of enhancing tumor, maximum B0 intensity, and mean trace intensity in the nonenhancing/edematous region. These variables were used to construct a prediction model based on a J48 classification tree. The average classification accuracy, assessed by cross-validation, was 85.1%. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the constructed prediction model classified malignant gliomas in a manner that better correlates with clinical outcome than standard histopathology. CONCLUSIONS: Prediction models based on data-mining algorithms can provide a more accurate predictor of prognosis in malignant gliomas than histopathologic classification alone.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The prediction of prognosis in HGGs is poor in the majority of patients. Our aim was to test whether multivariate prediction models constructed by machine-learning methods provide a more accurate predictor of prognosis in HGGs than histopathologic classification. The prediction of survival was based on DTI and rCBV measurements as an adjunct to conventional imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The relationship of survival to 55 variables, including clinical parameters (age, sex), categoric or continuous tumor descriptors (eg, tumor location, extent of resection, multifocality, edema), and imaging characteristics in ROIs, was analyzed in a multivariate fashion by using data-mining techniques. A variable selection method was applied to identify the overall most important variables. The analysis was performed on 74 HGGs (18 anaplastic gliomas WHO grades III/IV and 56 GBMs or gliosarcomas WHO grades IV/IV). RESULTS: Five variables were identified as the most significant, including the extent of resection, mass effect, volume of enhancing tumor, maximum B0 intensity, and mean trace intensity in the nonenhancing/edematous region. These variables were used to construct a prediction model based on a J48 classification tree. The average classification accuracy, assessed by cross-validation, was 85.1%. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the constructed prediction model classified malignant gliomas in a manner that better correlates with clinical outcome than standard histopathology. CONCLUSIONS: Prediction models based on data-mining algorithms can provide a more accurate predictor of prognosis in malignant gliomas than histopathologic classification alone.
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; Y Shigematu; T Hirai; T Okuda; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Komohara; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M Principi; M Italiani; A Guiducci; I Aprile; M Muti; G Giulianelli; P Ottaviano Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2003-03-05 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Christina Tsien; Craig J Galbán; Thomas L Chenevert; Timothy D Johnson; Daniel A Hamstra; Pia C Sundgren; Larry Junck; Charles R Meyer; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Theodore Lawrence; Brian D Ross Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Graziella Filippini; Chiara Falcone; Amerigo Boiardi; Giovanni Broggi; Maria G Bruzzone; Dario Caldiroli; Rita Farina; Mariangela Farinotti; Laura Fariselli; Gaetano Finocchiaro; Sergio Giombini; Bianca Pollo; Mario Savoiardo; Carlo L Solero; Maria G Valsecchi Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2007-11-09 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Martin Glas; Caroline Happold; Johannes Rieger; Dorothee Wiewrodt; Oliver Bähr; Joachim P Steinbach; Wolfgang Wick; Rolf-Dieter Kortmann; Guido Reifenberger; Michael Weller; Ulrich Herrlinger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael H Lev; Yelda Ozsunar; John W Henson; Amjad A Rasheed; Glenn D Barest; Griffith R Harsh; Markus M Fitzek; E Antonio Chiocca; James D Rabinov; Andrew N Csavoy; Bruce R Rosen; Fred H Hochberg; Pamela W Schaefer; R Gilberto Gonzalez Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Joonmi Oh; Roland G Henry; Andrea Pirzkall; Ying Lu; Xiaojuan Li; Isabelle Catalaa; Susan Chang; William P Dillon; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Riyadh N Al-Okaili; Jaroslaw Krejza; John H Woo; Ronald L Wolf; Donald M O'Rourke; Kevin D Judy; Harish Poptani; Elias R Melhem Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A Hilario; J M Sepulveda; A Perez-Nuñez; E Salvador; J M Millan; A Hernandez-Lain; V Rodriguez-Gonzalez; A Lagares; A Ramos Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sina Burth; Philipp Kickingereder; Oliver Eidel; Diana Tichy; David Bonekamp; Lukas Weberling; Antje Wick; Sarah Löw; Anne Hertenstein; Martha Nowosielski; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Wolfgang Wick; Martin Bendszus; Alexander Radbruch Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Julián Pérez-Beteta; Alicia Martínez-González; David Molina; Mariano Amo-Salas; Belén Luque; Elena Arregui; Manuel Calvo; José M Borrás; Carlos López; Marta Claramonte; Juan A Barcia; Lidia Iglesias; Josué Avecillas; David Albillo; Miguel Navarro; José M Villanueva; Juan C Paniagua; Juan Martino; Carlos Velásquez; Beatriz Asenjo; Manuel Benavides; Ismael Herruzo; María Del Carmen Delgado; Ana Del Valle; Anthony Falkov; Philippe Schucht; Estanislao Arana; Luis Pérez-Romasanta; Víctor M Pérez-García Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Céline De Looze; Alan Beausang; Jane Cryan; Teresa Loftus; Patrick G Buckley; Michael Farrell; Seamus Looby; Richard Reilly; Francesca Brett; Hugh Kearney Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Randy L Jensen; Michael L Mumert; David L Gillespie; Anita Y Kinney; Matthias C Schabel; Karen L Salzman Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 12.300