Aaron Abajian1, Nikitha Murali1, Lynn Jeanette Savic2, Fabian Max Laage-Gaupp1, Nariman Nezami1, James S Duncan3, Todd Schlachter1, MingDe Lin4, Jean-François Geschwind5, Julius Chapiro6. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06520. 2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06520; Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Universitätsmedizin Charité Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Yale School of Engineering and Applied Science, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Philips Research North America, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 5. Prescience Labs, Westport, Connecticut. 6. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06520. Electronic address: julius.chapiro@yale.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To use magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and clinical patient data to create an artificial intelligence (AI) framework for the prediction of therapeutic outcomes of transarterial chemoembolization by applying machine learning (ML) techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 36 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with transarterial chemoembolization. The cohort (age 62 ± 8.9 years; 31 men; 13 white; 24 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, 10 status 1, 2 status 2; 31 Child-Pugh stage A, 4 stage B, 1 stage C; 1 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0, 12 stage A, 10 stage B, 13 stage C; tumor size 5.2 ± 3.0 cm; number of tumors 2.6 ± 1.1; and 30 conventional transarterial chemoembolization, 6 with drug-eluting embolic agents). MR imaging was obtained before and 1 month after transarterial chemoembolization. Image-based tumor response to transarterial chemoembolization was assessed with the use of the 3D quantitative European Association for the Study of the Liver (qEASL) criterion. Clinical information, baseline imaging, and therapeutic features were used to train logistic regression (LR) and random forest (RF) models to predict patients as treatment responders or nonresponders under the qEASL response criterion. The performance of each model was validated using leave-one-out cross-validation. RESULTS: Both LR and RF models predicted transarterial chemoembolization treatment response with an overall accuracy of 78% (sensitivity 62.5%, specificity 82.1%, positive predictive value 50.0%, negative predictive value 88.5%). The strongest predictors of treatment response included a clinical variable (presence of cirrhosis) and an imaging variable (relative tumor signal intensity >27.0). CONCLUSIONS: Transarterial chemoembolization outcomes in patients with HCC may be predicted before procedures by combining clinical patient data and baseline MR imaging with the use of AI and ML techniques.
PURPOSE: To use magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and clinical patient data to create an artificial intelligence (AI) framework for the prediction of therapeutic outcomes of transarterial chemoembolization by applying machine learning (ML) techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 36 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with transarterial chemoembolization. The cohort (age 62 ± 8.9 years; 31 men; 13 white; 24 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, 10 status 1, 2 status 2; 31 Child-Pugh stage A, 4 stage B, 1 stage C; 1 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0, 12 stage A, 10 stage B, 13 stage C; tumor size 5.2 ± 3.0 cm; number of tumors 2.6 ± 1.1; and 30 conventional transarterial chemoembolization, 6 with drug-eluting embolic agents). MR imaging was obtained before and 1 month after transarterial chemoembolization. Image-based tumor response to transarterial chemoembolization was assessed with the use of the 3D quantitative European Association for the Study of the Liver (qEASL) criterion. Clinical information, baseline imaging, and therapeutic features were used to train logistic regression (LR) and random forest (RF) models to predict patients as treatment responders or nonresponders under the qEASL response criterion. The performance of each model was validated using leave-one-out cross-validation. RESULTS: Both LR and RF models predicted transarterial chemoembolization treatment response with an overall accuracy of 78% (sensitivity 62.5%, specificity 82.1%, positive predictive value 50.0%, negative predictive value 88.5%). The strongest predictors of treatment response included a clinical variable (presence of cirrhosis) and an imaging variable (relative tumor signal intensity >27.0). CONCLUSIONS: Transarterial chemoembolization outcomes in patients with HCC may be predicted before procedures by combining clinical patient data and baseline MR imaging with the use of AI and ML techniques.
Authors: J Bruix; M Sherman; J M Llovet; M Beaugrand; R Lencioni; A K Burroughs; E Christensen; L Pagliaro; M Colombo; J Rodés Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Al B Benson; Thomas A Abrams; Edgar Ben-Josef; P Mark Bloomston; Jean F Botha; Bryan M Clary; Anne Covey; Steven A Curley; Michael I D'Angelica; Rene Davila; William D Ensminger; John F Gibbs; Daniel Laheru; Mokenge P Malafa; Jorge Marrero; Steven G Meranze; Sean J Mulvihill; James O Park; James A Posey; Jasgit Sachdev; Riad Salem; Elin R Sigurdson; Constantinos Sofocleous; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Alan P Venook; Laura Williams Goff; Yun Yen; Andrew X Zhu Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Roopinder Gillmore; Sam Stuart; Amy Kirkwood; Ayshea Hameeduddin; Nick Woodward; Andrew K Burroughs; Tim Meyer Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Bradley Spieler; Carl Sabottke; Ahmed W Moawad; Ahmed M Gabr; Mustafa R Bashir; Richard Kinh Gian Do; Vahid Yaghmai; Radu Rozenberg; Marielia Gerena; Joseph Yacoub; Khaled M Elsayes Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-03-31
Authors: Ali Morshid; Khaled M Elsayes; Ahmed M Khalaf; Mohab M Elmohr; Justin Yu; Ahmed O Kaseb; Manal Hassan; Armeen Mahvash; Zhihui Wang; John D Hazle; David Fuentes Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2019-09-25
Authors: Hailong Li; Lili He; Jonathan A Dudley; Thomas C Maloney; Elanchezhian Somasundaram; Samuel L Brady; Nehal A Parikh; Jonathan R Dillman Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2020-10-13