Jian Zhang1, Hengyong Yu2, Xiaohua Qian1, Keqin Liu1, Hua Tan1, Tielin Yang3, Maode Wang4, King Chuen Li1, Michael D Chan5, Waldemar Debinski5, Anna Paulsson5, Ge Wang6, Xiaobo Zhou7. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Wake Forest Medical School, Winston-Salem, NC 27103, USA. 2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Masachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA 01854, USA. 3. School of Life Science, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shanxi 710049, China. 4. The First Affiliated Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shanxi 710049, China. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest Medical School, Winston-Salem, NC 27103, USA. 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180, USA. 7. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Wake Forest Medical School, Winston-Salem, NC 27103, USA. Electronic address: xizhou@wakehealth.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although the use of temozolomide in chemoradiotherapy is effective, the challenging clinical problem of pseudo progression has been raised in brain tumor treatment. This study aims to distinguish pseudo progression from true progression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2000 and 2012, a total of 161 patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) were treated with chemoradiotherapy at our hospital. Among the patients, 79 had their diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data acquired at the earliest diagnosed date of pseudo progression or true progression, and 23 had both DTI data and genomic data. Clinical records of all patients were kept in good condition. Volumetric fractional anisotropy (FA) images obtained from the DTI data were decomposed into a sequence of sparse representations. Then, a feature selection algorithm was applied to extract the critical features from the feature matrix to reduce the size of the feature matrix and to improve the classification accuracy. RESULTS: The proposed approach was validated using the 79 samples with clinical DTI data. Satisfactory results were obtained under different experimental conditions. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.87 for a given dictionary with 1024 atoms. For the subgroup of 23 samples, genomics data analysis was also performed. Results implied further perspective on pseudo progression classification. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method can determine pseudo progression and true progression with improved accuracy. Laboring segmentation is no longer necessary because this skillfully designed method is not sensitive to tumor location.
OBJECTIVE: Although the use of temozolomide in chemoradiotherapy is effective, the challenging clinical problem of pseudo progression has been raised in brain tumor treatment. This study aims to distinguish pseudo progression from true progression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2000 and 2012, a total of 161 patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) were treated with chemoradiotherapy at our hospital. Among the patients, 79 had their diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data acquired at the earliest diagnosed date of pseudo progression or true progression, and 23 had both DTI data and genomic data. Clinical records of all patients were kept in good condition. Volumetric fractional anisotropy (FA) images obtained from the DTI data were decomposed into a sequence of sparse representations. Then, a feature selection algorithm was applied to extract the critical features from the feature matrix to reduce the size of the feature matrix and to improve the classification accuracy. RESULTS: The proposed approach was validated using the 79 samples with clinical DTI data. Satisfactory results were obtained under different experimental conditions. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.87 for a given dictionary with 1024 atoms. For the subgroup of 23 samples, genomics data analysis was also performed. Results implied further perspective on pseudo progression classification. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method can determine pseudo progression and true progression with improved accuracy. Laboring segmentation is no longer necessary because this skillfully designed method is not sensitive to tumor location.
Authors: Mark W Woolrich; Saad Jbabdi; Brian Patenaude; Michael Chappell; Salima Makni; Timothy Behrens; Christian Beckmann; Mark Jenkinson; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-11-13 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: L C Hygino da Cruz; I Rodriguez; R C Domingues; E L Gasparetto; A G Sorensen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-03-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Maxwell Lewis Neal; Andrew D Trister; Sunyoung Ahn; Anne Baldock; Carly A Bridge; Laura Guyman; Jordan Lange; Rita Sodt; Tyler Cloke; Albert Lai; Timothy F Cloughesy; Maciej M Mrugala; Jason K Rockhill; Russell C Rockne; Kristin R Swanson Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Ankit I Mehta; Charles W Kanaly; Allan H Friedman; Darell D Bigner; John H Sampson Journal: Toxins (Basel) Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 4.546
Authors: Michael H Soike; Emory R McTyre; Nameeta Shah; Ralph B Puchalski; Jordan A Holmes; Anna K Paulsson; Lance D Miller; Christina K Cramer; Glenn J Lesser; Roy E Strowd; William H Hinson; Ryan T Mott; Annette J Johnson; Hui-Wen Lo; Adrian W Laxton; Stephen B Tatter; Waldemar Debinski; Michael D Chan Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Otto M Henriksen; María Del Mar Álvarez-Torres; Patricia Figueiredo; Gilbert Hangel; Vera C Keil; Ruben E Nechifor; Frank Riemer; Kathleen M Schmainda; Esther A H Warnert; Evita C Wiegers; Thomas C Booth Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Adrian Ion-Mărgineanu; Sofie Van Cauter; Diana M Sima; Frederik Maes; Stefan Sunaert; Uwe Himmelreich; Sabine Van Huffel Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 4.677