Yuqi Han1,2,3, Zhen Xie4, Yali Zang2,3,5, Shuaitong Zhang2,3,5, Dongsheng Gu2,3,5, Mu Zhou6, Olivier Gevaert6, Jingwei Wei2,3,5, Chao Li4, Hongyan Chen7, Jiang Du7, Zhenyu Liu2,3,5, Di Dong8,9,10, Jie Tian11,12,13,14, Dabiao Zhou15,16. 1. School of Life Science and Technology, Xidian University, Xi'an, 710126, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China. 3. Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Beijing, 100190, China. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China. 5. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China. 6. Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 7. Department of Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, No. 6 Tiantanxili, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100050, China. 8. Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China. di.dong@ia.ac.cn. 9. Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Beijing, 100190, China. di.dong@ia.ac.cn. 10. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China. di.dong@ia.ac.cn. 11. Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China. tian@ieee.org. 12. Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Beijing, 100190, China. tian@ieee.org. 13. The State Key Laboratory of Management and Control for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China. tian@ieee.org. 14. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China. tian@ieee.org. 15. Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China. dabiaozhou@163.com. 16. China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing, 100050, China. dabiaozhou@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform radiomics analysis for non-invasively predicting chromosome 1p/19q co-deletion in World Health Organization grade II and III (lower-grade) gliomas. METHODS: This retrospective study included 277 patients histopathologically diagnosed with lower-grade glioma. Clinical parameters were recorded for each patient. We performed a radiomics analysis by extracting 647 MRI-based features and applied the random forest algorithm to generate a radiomics signature for predicting 1p/19q co-deletion in the training cohort (n = 184). The clinical model consisted of pertinent clinical factors, and was built using a logistic regression algorithm. A combined model, incorporating both the radiomics signature and related clinical factors, was also constructed. The receiver operating characteristics curve was used to evaluate the predictive performance. We further validated the predictability of the three developed models using a time-independent validation cohort (n = 93). RESULTS: The radiomics signature was constructed as an independent predictor for differentiating 1p/19q co-deletion genotypes, which demonstrated superior performance on both the training and validation cohorts with areas under curve (AUCs) of 0.887 and 0.760, respectively. These results outperformed the clinical model (AUCs of 0.580 and 0.627 on training and validation cohorts). The AUCs of the combined model were 0.885 and 0.753 on training and validation cohorts, respectively, which indicated that clinical factors did not present additional improvement for the prediction. CONCLUSION: Our study highlighted that an MRI-based radiomics signature can effectively identify the 1p/19q co-deletion in histopathologically diagnosed lower-grade gliomas, thereby offering the potential to facilitate non-invasive molecular subtype prediction of gliomas.
PURPOSE: To perform radiomics analysis for non-invasively predicting chromosome 1p/19q co-deletion in World Health Organization grade II and III (lower-grade) gliomas. METHODS: This retrospective study included 277 patients histopathologically diagnosed with lower-grade glioma. Clinical parameters were recorded for each patient. We performed a radiomics analysis by extracting 647 MRI-based features and applied the random forest algorithm to generate a radiomics signature for predicting 1p/19q co-deletion in the training cohort (n = 184). The clinical model consisted of pertinent clinical factors, and was built using a logistic regression algorithm. A combined model, incorporating both the radiomics signature and related clinical factors, was also constructed. The receiver operating characteristics curve was used to evaluate the predictive performance. We further validated the predictability of the three developed models using a time-independent validation cohort (n = 93). RESULTS: The radiomics signature was constructed as an independent predictor for differentiating 1p/19q co-deletion genotypes, which demonstrated superior performance on both the training and validation cohorts with areas under curve (AUCs) of 0.887 and 0.760, respectively. These results outperformed the clinical model (AUCs of 0.580 and 0.627 on training and validation cohorts). The AUCs of the combined model were 0.885 and 0.753 on training and validation cohorts, respectively, which indicated that clinical factors did not present additional improvement for the prediction. CONCLUSION: Our study highlighted that an MRI-based radiomics signature can effectively identify the 1p/19q co-deletion in histopathologically diagnosed lower-grade gliomas, thereby offering the potential to facilitate non-invasive molecular subtype prediction of gliomas.
Entities:
Keywords:
1p/19q Co-deletion; Lower-grade glioma; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prediction; Radiomics
Authors: G S Bauman; Y Ino; K Ueki; M C Zlatescu; B J Fisher; D R Macdonald; L Stitt; D N Louis; J G Cairncross Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J S Smith; A Perry; T J Borell; H K Lee; J O'Fallon; S M Hosek; D Kimmel; A Yates; P C Burger; B W Scheithauer; R B Jenkins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Michael D Jenkinson; Daniel G du Plessis; Trevor S Smith; Kathy A Joyce; Peter C Warnke; Carol Walker Journal: Brain Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: G Kaloshi; A Benouaich-Amiel; F Diakite; S Taillibert; J Lejeune; F Laigle-Donadey; M-A Renard; W Iraqi; A Idbaih; S Paris; L Capelle; H Duffau; P Cornu; J-M Simon; K Mokhtari; M Polivka; A Omuro; A Carpentier; M Sanson; J-Y Delattre; K Hoang-Xuan Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Matthew B Spraker; Landon S Wootton; Daniel S Hippe; Kevin C Ball; Jan C Peeken; Meghan W Macomber; Tobias R Chapman; Michael N Hoff; Edward Y Kim; Seth M Pollack; Stephanie E Combs; Matthew J Nyflot Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-02-23
Authors: Donnie Kim; Nicholas Wang; Viswesh Ravikumar; D R Raghuram; Jinju Li; Ankit Patel; Richard E Wendt; Ganesh Rao; Arvind Rao Journal: Front Comput Neurosci Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 2.380
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