Ahmad Chaddad1,2, Christian Desrosiers1, Lama Hassan1,2, Camel Tanougast2. 1. 1 Laboratory for Imagery, Vision and Artificial Intelligence, University of Québec, École de Technologie Supérieure, Montréal, QC, Canada. 2. 2 Laboratory of Conception, Optimization and Modeling of Systems, University of Lorraine, Metz, Lorraine, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Predicting the survival outcome of patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is of key importance to clinicians for selecting the optimal course of treatment. The goal of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of geometric shape features, extracted from MR images, as a potential non-invasive way to characterize GBM tumours and predict the overall survival times of patients with GBM. METHODS: The data of 40 patients with GBM were obtained from the Cancer Genome Atlas and Cancer Imaging Archive. The T1 weighted post-contrast and fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery volumes of patients were co-registered and segmented into delineate regions corresponding to three GBM phenotypes: necrosis, active tumour and oedema/invasion. A set of two-dimensional shape features were then extracted slicewise from each phenotype region and combined over slices to describe the three-dimensional shape of these phenotypes. Thereafter, a Kruskal-Wallis test was employed to identify shape features with significantly different distributions across phenotypes. Moreover, a Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to find features strongly associated with GBM survival. Finally, a multivariate analysis based on the random forest model was used for predicting the survival group of patients with GBM. RESULTS: Our analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis test showed that all but one shape feature had statistically significant differences across phenotypes, with p-value < 0.05, following Holm-Bonferroni correction, justifying the analysis of GBM tumour shapes on a per-phenotype basis. Furthermore, the survival analysis based on the Kaplan-Meier estimator identified three features derived from necrotic regions (i.e. Eccentricity, Extent and Solidity) that were significantly correlated with overall survival (corrected p-value < 0.05; hazard ratios between 1.68 and 1.87). In the multivariate analysis, features from necrotic regions gave the highest accuracy in predicting the survival group of patients, with a mean area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 63.85%. Combining the features of all three phenotypes increased the mean AUC to 66.99%, suggesting that shape features from different phenotypes can be used in a synergic manner to predict GBM survival. CONCLUSION: Results show that shape features, in particular those extracted from necrotic regions, can be used effectively to characterize GBM tumours and predict the overall survival of patients with GBM. Advances in knowledge: Simple volumetric features have been largely used to characterize the different phenotypes of a GBM tumour (i.e. active tumour, oedema and necrosis). This study extends previous work by considering a wide range of shape features, extracted in different phenotypes, for the prediction of survival in patients with GBM.
OBJECTIVE: Predicting the survival outcome of patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is of key importance to clinicians for selecting the optimal course of treatment. The goal of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of geometric shape features, extracted from MR images, as a potential non-invasive way to characterize GBM tumours and predict the overall survival times of patients with GBM. METHODS: The data of 40 patients with GBM were obtained from the Cancer Genome Atlas and Cancer Imaging Archive. The T1 weighted post-contrast and fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery volumes of patients were co-registered and segmented into delineate regions corresponding to three GBM phenotypes: necrosis, active tumour and oedema/invasion. A set of two-dimensional shape features were then extracted slicewise from each phenotype region and combined over slices to describe the three-dimensional shape of these phenotypes. Thereafter, a Kruskal-Wallis test was employed to identify shape features with significantly different distributions across phenotypes. Moreover, a Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to find features strongly associated with GBM survival. Finally, a multivariate analysis based on the random forest model was used for predicting the survival group of patients with GBM. RESULTS: Our analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis test showed that all but one shape feature had statistically significant differences across phenotypes, with p-value < 0.05, following Holm-Bonferroni correction, justifying the analysis of GBM tumour shapes on a per-phenotype basis. Furthermore, the survival analysis based on the Kaplan-Meier estimator identified three features derived from necrotic regions (i.e. Eccentricity, Extent and Solidity) that were significantly correlated with overall survival (corrected p-value < 0.05; hazard ratios between 1.68 and 1.87). In the multivariate analysis, features from necrotic regions gave the highest accuracy in predicting the survival group of patients, with a mean area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 63.85%. Combining the features of all three phenotypes increased the mean AUC to 66.99%, suggesting that shape features from different phenotypes can be used in a synergic manner to predict GBM survival. CONCLUSION: Results show that shape features, in particular those extracted from necrotic regions, can be used effectively to characterize GBM tumours and predict the overall survival of patients with GBM. Advances in knowledge: Simple volumetric features have been largely used to characterize the different phenotypes of a GBM tumour (i.e. active tumour, oedema and necrosis). This study extends previous work by considering a wide range of shape features, extracted in different phenotypes, for the prediction of survival in patients with GBM.
Authors: John K Park; Tiffany Hodges; Leopold Arko; Michael Shen; Donna Dello Iacono; Adrian McNabb; Nancy Olsen Bailey; Teri Nguyen Kreisl; Fabio M Iwamoto; Joohee Sul; Sungyoung Auh; Grace E Park; Howard A Fine; Peter McL Black Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L Blanchet; P W T Krooshof; G J Postma; A J Idema; B Goraj; A Heerschap; L M C Buydens Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Howard Colman; Li Zhang; Erik P Sulman; J Matthew McDonald; Nasrin Latif Shooshtari; Andreana Rivera; Sonya Popoff; Catherine L Nutt; David N Louis; J Gregory Cairncross; Mark R Gilbert; Heidi S Phillips; Minesh P Mehta; Arnab Chakravarti; Christopher E Pelloski; Krishna Bhat; Burt G Feuerstein; Robert B Jenkins; Ken Aldape Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Fred W Prior; Ken Clark; Paul Commean; John Freymann; Carl Jaffe; Justin Kirby; Stephen Moore; Kirk Smith; Lawrence Tarbox; Bruce Vendt; Guillermo Marquez Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2013
Authors: David A Gutman; Lee A D Cooper; Scott N Hwang; Chad A Holder; Jingjing Gao; Tarun D Aurora; William D Dunn; Lisa Scarpace; Tom Mikkelsen; Rajan Jain; Max Wintermark; Manal Jilwan; Prashant Raghavan; Erich Huang; Robert J Clifford; Pattanasak Mongkolwat; Vladimir Kleper; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Pascal O Zinn; Carlos S Moreno; Carl Jaffe; Rivka Colen; Daniel L Rubin; Joel Saltz; Adam Flanders; Daniel J Brat Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Timothy L Jones; Tiernan J Byrnes; Guang Yang; Franklyn A Howe; B Anthony Bell; Thomas R Barrick Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Satoka Shidoh; Ricky R Savjani; Nicholas S Cho; Henrik E Ullman; Akifumi Hagiwara; Catalina Raymond; Albert Lai; Phionah L Nghiemphu; Linda M Liau; Whitney B Pope; Timothy F Cloughesy; Tania B Kaprealian; Noriko Salamon; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Tyler C Steed; Jeffrey M Treiber; Michael G Brandel; Kunal S Patel; Anders M Dale; Bob S Carter; Clark C Chen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Luca Pasquini; Antonio Napolitano; Martina Lucignani; Emanuela Tagliente; Francesco Dellepiane; Maria Camilla Rossi-Espagnet; Matteo Ritrovato; Antonello Vidiri; Veronica Villani; Giulio Ranazzi; Antonella Stoppacciaro; Andrea Romano; Alberto Di Napoli; Alessandro Bozzao Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-11-23 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Joeky Tamba Senders; Maya Harary; Brittany Morgan Stopa; Patrick Staples; Marike Lianne Daphne Broekman; Timothy Richard Smith; William Brian Gormley; Omar Arnaout Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 2.238