Samuel John Fahrenholtz1,2, Reza Madankan1, Shabbar Danish3, John D Hazle1,2, R Jason Stafford1,2, David Fuentes1,2. 1. a Department of Imaging Physics , University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center , Houston , TX , USA. 2. b Department of Medical Physics , UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences , Houston , TX , USA. 3. c Section of Neurosurgery , Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey , New Brunswick , NJ , USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Neurosurgical laser ablation is experiencing a renaissance. Computational tools for ablation planning aim to further improve the intervention. Here, global optimisation and inverse problems are demonstrated to train a model that predicts maximum laser ablation extent. METHODS: A closed-form steady state model is trained on and then subsequently compared to N = 20 retrospective clinical MR thermometry datasets. Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) is calculated to provide a measure of region overlap between the 57 °C isotherms of the thermometry data and the model-predicted ablation regions; 57 °C is a tissue death surrogate at thermal steady state. A global optimisation scheme samples the dominant model parameter sensitivities, blood perfusion (ω) and optical parameter (μeff) values, throughout a parameter space totalling 11 440 value-pairs. This represents a lookup table of μeff-ω pairs with the corresponding DSC value for each patient dataset. The μeff-ω pair with the maximum DSC calibrates the model parameters, maximising predictive value for each patient. Finally, leave-one-out cross-validation with global optimisation information trains the model on the entire clinical dataset, and compares against the model naïvely using literature values for ω and μeff. RESULTS: When using naïve literature values, the model's mean DSC is 0.67 whereas the calibrated model produces 0.82 during cross-validation, an improvement of 0.15 in overlap with the patient data. The 95% confidence interval of the mean difference is 0.083-0.23 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During cross-validation, the calibrated model is superior to the naïve model as measured by DSC, with +22% mean prediction accuracy. Calibration empowers a relatively simple model to become more predictive.
PURPOSE: Neurosurgical laser ablation is experiencing a renaissance. Computational tools for ablation planning aim to further improve the intervention. Here, global optimisation and inverse problems are demonstrated to train a model that predicts maximum laser ablation extent. METHODS: A closed-form steady state model is trained on and then subsequently compared to N = 20 retrospective clinical MR thermometry datasets. Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) is calculated to provide a measure of region overlap between the 57 °C isotherms of the thermometry data and the model-predicted ablation regions; 57 °C is a tissue death surrogate at thermal steady state. A global optimisation scheme samples the dominant model parameter sensitivities, blood perfusion (ω) and optical parameter (μeff) values, throughout a parameter space totalling 11 440 value-pairs. This represents a lookup table of μeff-ω pairs with the corresponding DSC value for each patient dataset. The μeff-ω pair with the maximum DSC calibrates the model parameters, maximising predictive value for each patient. Finally, leave-one-out cross-validation with global optimisation information trains the model on the entire clinical dataset, and compares against the model naïvely using literature values for ω and μeff. RESULTS: When using naïve literature values, the model's mean DSC is 0.67 whereas the calibrated model produces 0.82 during cross-validation, an improvement of 0.15 in overlap with the patient data. The 95% confidence interval of the mean difference is 0.083-0.23 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During cross-validation, the calibrated model is superior to the naïve model as measured by DSC, with +22% mean prediction accuracy. Calibration empowers a relatively simple model to become more predictive.
Authors: Joshua P Yung; Anil Shetty; Andrew Elliott; Jeffrey S Weinberg; Roger J McNichols; Ashok Gowda; John D Hazle; R Jason Stafford Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: R Jason Stafford; Roger E Price; Chris J Diederich; Marko Kangasniemi; Lars E Olsson; John D Hazle Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Taofeek K Owonikoko; Jack Arbiser; Amelia Zelnak; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; Adam M Robin; Steven N Kalkanis; Timothy G Whitsett; Bodour Salhia; Nhan L Tran; Timothy Ryken; Michael K Moore; Kathleen M Egan; Jeffrey J Olson Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Alexandre Carpentier; Roger J McNichols; R Jason Stafford; Jean-Pierre Guichard; Daniel Reizine; Suzette Delaloge; Eric Vicaut; Didier Payen; Ashok Gowda; Bernard George Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2011-11-22 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Julian L Wichmann; Martin Beeres; B Maxi Borchard; Nagy N N Naguib; Boris Bodelle; Clara Lee; Stephan Zangos; Thomas J Vogl; Martin G Mack; Katrin Eichler Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 3.914
Authors: Alexandre Carpentier; Roger J McNichols; R Jason Stafford; Julian Itzcovitz; Jean-Pierre Guichard; Daniel Reizine; Suzette Delaloge; Eric Vicaut; Didier Payen; Ashok Gowda; Bernard George Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Jarrod A Collins; Jon S Heiselman; Logan W Clements; Jared A Weis; Daniel B Brown; Michael I Miga Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Amy Lee Bredlau; Anjan Motamarry; Chao Chen; M A McCrackin; Kris Helke; Kent E Armeson; Katrina Bynum; Ann-Marie Broome; Dieter Haemmerich Journal: Drug Deliv Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 6.419