Céline De Looze1,2, Alan Beausang3, Jane Cryan3, Teresa Loftus4, Patrick G Buckley4,5, Michael Farrell3, Seamus Looby6, Richard Reilly1,7,8, Francesca Brett3, Hugh Kearney9. 1. Trinity Centre for Bioengineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. 2. School of Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Department of Neuropathology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 4. Department of Molecular Pathology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 5. Genomics Medicine Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. 6. Department of Neuroradiology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 7. Institute of Neurosciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. 8. School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. 9. Department of Neuropathology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. hugh.kearney.10@ucl.ac.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Machine learning methods have been introduced as a computer aided diagnostic tool, with applications to glioma characterisation on MRI. Such an algorithmic approach may provide a useful adjunct for a rapid and accurate diagnosis of a glioma. The aim of this study is to devise a machine learning algorithm that may be used by radiologists in routine practice to aid diagnosis of both: WHO grade and IDH mutation status in de novo gliomas. METHODS: To evaluate the status quo, we interrogated the accuracy of neuroradiology reports in relation to WHO grade: grade II 96.49% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.88, 0.99); III 36.51% (95% CI 0.24, 0.50); IV 72.9% (95% CI 0.67, 0.78). We derived five MRI parameters from the same diagnostic brain scans, in under two minutes per case, and then supplied these data to a random forest algorithm. RESULTS: Machine learning resulted in a high level of accuracy in prediction of tumour grade: grade II/III; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 98%, sensitivity = 0.82, specificity = 0.94; grade II/IV; AUC = 100%, sensitivity = 1.0, specificity = 1.0; grade III/IV; AUC = 97%, sensitivity = 0.83, specificity = 0.97. Furthermore, machine learning also facilitated the discrimination of IDH status: AUC of 88%, sensitivity = 0.81, specificity = 0.77. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate the ability of machine learning to accurately classify diffuse gliomas by both WHO grade and IDH status from routine MRI alone-without significant image processing, which may facilitate usage as a diagnostic adjunct in clinical practice.
INTRODUCTION: Machine learning methods have been introduced as a computer aided diagnostic tool, with applications to glioma characterisation on MRI. Such an algorithmic approach may provide a useful adjunct for a rapid and accurate diagnosis of a glioma. The aim of this study is to devise a machine learning algorithm that may be used by radiologists in routine practice to aid diagnosis of both: WHO grade and IDH mutation status in de novo gliomas. METHODS: To evaluate the status quo, we interrogated the accuracy of neuroradiology reports in relation to WHO grade: grade II 96.49% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.88, 0.99); III 36.51% (95% CI 0.24, 0.50); IV 72.9% (95% CI 0.67, 0.78). We derived five MRI parameters from the same diagnostic brain scans, in under two minutes per case, and then supplied these data to a random forest algorithm. RESULTS: Machine learning resulted in a high level of accuracy in prediction of tumour grade: grade II/III; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 98%, sensitivity = 0.82, specificity = 0.94; grade II/IV; AUC = 100%, sensitivity = 1.0, specificity = 1.0; grade III/IV; AUC = 97%, sensitivity = 0.83, specificity = 0.97. Furthermore, machine learning also facilitated the discrimination of IDH status: AUC of 88%, sensitivity = 0.81, specificity = 0.77. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate the ability of machine learning to accurately classify diffuse gliomas by both WHO grade and IDH status from routine MRI alone-without significant image processing, which may facilitate usage as a diagnostic adjunct in clinical practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnostic accuracy; Glioma; MRI; Machine learning; Random forest
Authors: Philipp Kickingereder; David Bonekamp; Martha Nowosielski; Annekathrin Kratz; Martin Sill; Sina Burth; Antje Wick; Oliver Eidel; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Alexander Radbruch; Jürgen Debus; Christel Herold-Mende; Andreas Unterberg; David Jones; Stefan Pfister; Wolfgang Wick; Andreas von Deimling; Martin Bendszus; David Capper Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David N Louis; Arie Perry; Guido Reifenberger; Andreas von Deimling; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Webster K Cavenee; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Paul Kleihues; David W Ellison Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Kenneth Clark; Bruce Vendt; Kirk Smith; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Paul Koppel; Stephen Moore; Stanley Phillips; David Maffitt; Michael Pringle; Lawrence Tarbox; Fred Prior Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: David E Reuss; Felix Sahm; Daniel Schrimpf; Benedikt Wiestler; David Capper; Christian Koelsche; Leonille Schweizer; Andrey Korshunov; David T W Jones; Volker Hovestadt; Michel Mittelbronn; Jens Schittenhelm; Christel Herold-Mende; Andreas Unterberg; Michael Platten; Michael Weller; Wolfgang Wick; Stefan M Pfister; Andreas von Deimling Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Stephen Waite; Srinivas Kolla; Jean Jeudy; Alan Legasto; Stephen L Macknik; Susana Martinez-Conde; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Deborah L Reede Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: William A Flavahan; Yotam Drier; Brian B Liau; Shawn M Gillespie; Andrew S Venteicher; Anat O Stemmer-Rachamimov; Mario L Suvà; Bradley E Bernstein Journal: Nature Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Ryan C Bahar; Sara Merkaj; Gabriel I Cassinelli Petersen; Niklas Tillmanns; Harry Subramanian; Waverly Rose Brim; Tal Zeevi; Lawrence Staib; Eve Kazarian; MingDe Lin; Khaled Bousabarah; Anita J Huttner; Andrej Pala; Seyedmehdi Payabvash; Jana Ivanidze; Jin Cui; Ajay Malhotra; Mariam S Aboian Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 5.738
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: Evi J van Kempen; Max Post; Manoj Mannil; Benno Kusters; Mark Ter Laan; Frederick J A Meijer; Dylan J H A Henssen Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Akifumi Hagiwara; Hiroyuki Tatekawa; Jingwen Yao; Catalina Raymond; Richard Everson; Kunal Patel; Sergey Mareninov; William H Yong; Noriko Salamon; Whitney B Pope; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Linda M Liau; Timothy F Cloughesy; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 4.379