| Literature DB >> 30669406 |
Gopal S Tandel1, Mainak Biswas2,3, Omprakash G Kakde4, Ashish Tiwari5, Harman S Suri6, Monica Turk7, John R Laird8, Christopher K Asare9, Annabel A Ankrah10, N N Khanna11, B K Madhusudhan12, Luca Saba13, Jasjit S Suri14.
Abstract
A World Health Organization (WHO) Feb 2018 report has recently shown that mortality rate due to brain or central nervous system (CNS) cancer is the highest in the Asian continent. It is of critical importance that cancer be detected earlier so that many of these lives can be saved. Cancer grading is an important aspect for targeted therapy. As cancer diagnosis is highly invasive, time consuming and expensive, there is an immediate requirement to develop a non-invasive, cost-effective and efficient tools for brain cancer characterization and grade estimation. Brain scans using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), as well as other imaging modalities, are fast and safer methods for tumor detection. In this paper, we tried to summarize the pathophysiology of brain cancer, imaging modalities of brain cancer and automatic computer assisted methods for brain cancer characterization in a machine and deep learning paradigm. Another objective of this paper is to find the current issues in existing engineering methods and also project a future paradigm. Further, we have highlighted the relationship between brain cancer and other brain disorders like stroke, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Wilson's disease, leukoriaosis, and other neurological disorders in the context of machine learning and the deep learning paradigm.Entities:
Keywords: brain; cancer; deep learning; extreme learning; imaging; machine learning; neurological disorders; pathophysiology
Year: 2019 PMID: 30669406 PMCID: PMC6356431 DOI: 10.3390/cancers11010111
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Cell cycle proliferation. (image courtesy: AtheroPointTM, Roseville, CA, USA).
Genomics relevance with Brain Tumor, RKT: Receptor Tyrosine Kinase, TP53 (p53): Tumor Protein53, RB1: Retino Blastoma1, EGFR: Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor, PTEN: Phosphatase and Tensin Homolog, IDH1/DH2: Isocitrate Dehydrogenase 1/2, 1p and 19 co-deletion, MGMT: O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase, BRAF: B-Raf proto-oncogene, ATRX: The α-thalassemia-mental retardation syndrome X-linked, HGG: High-Grade Gliomas, GBM: Glioblastoma.
| Gene Type | Function | Mutation Effect | Relevancy Between Brain Tumor and Genes [Degree of Mutation] |
|---|---|---|---|
| TP53(p53) | DNA repair |
Genetic Instability Reduced Apoptosis Angiogenesis |
More relevant to HGG Brain Tumor (80%) |
| RB1 | Tumor Suppressor |
Blocks cell cycle progression Unchecked cell cycle progression |
More relevant to GBM Brain Tumor (75%) |
| EGFR | Trans-Membrane Receptor In (RTK) |
Increased Proliferation Increased Tumor Cell Survival |
Primary GBM (Approx. 40%) |
| PTEN | Tumor Suppressor |
Increased Cell Proliferation Reduced Cell Death |
Primary GBM (15–40%) GBM (up to 80%) |
| IDH1 and DH2 | Control citric acid cycle |
Inhibits the function of enzymes | IDH1 Primary GBM (5%) GBM Grade II-III (70–80%) IDH1 longer survival. Relevant to oligodendroglial tumors |
| 1p and 19q | Prognosis of the disease or treatment assessment |
Poor prognosis |
Oligodendrogliomas (80%) Anaplastic Oligodendrogliomas (60%) Oligoastrocytomas (30–50%) Anaplastic Oligoastrocytomas (20–30%) |
| MGMT | DNA repair |
Cell proliferation |
GBM (35–75%) |
| BRAF | Proto-oncogene |
Cell Proliferation Apoptosis |
Pilocyticastrocytomas (65–80%) Pleomorphic Xanthoastrocytomas and Gangliogliomas (25%) |
| ATRX | Deposition of Genomic Repeats. |
Genital Anomalies, Hypotonia, Intellectual Disability Mild-To-Moderate Anemia Secondary To α-Thalassemi |
Relevent to oligodendroglial |
Figure 2(a) Axial view, (b) Sagittal view, (c) Coronal view and (d) T1-weighted, (e) T2-weighted and (f) FLAIR Images of MRI. (image courtesy: AtheroPointTM ).
WHO recommendations for tumor assessment in different editions.
| Edition | Year | Recommended Parameters for Tumor Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| I | 1979 | Miotic Activity, Necrosis and Infiltration |
| II | 1993 | Immunohistochemistry (IHC) |
| III | 2000 | Genetic Profile |
| IV | 2007 | Genetic Profile and Histological Variation |
| V | 2016 | Molecular Features and Histology |
Overview of some open challenges in digital pathology images analysis worldwide.
| Year | Challenges | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 2012 | ICPR Mitosis Detection Competition | [ |
| 2012 | EM segmentation challenge 2012 | [ |
| 2013 | MICCAI Grand Challenge on Mitosis Detection | [ |
| 2014 | MICCAI Brain Tumor Digital Pathology Challenge | |
| 2014 | MICCAI Brain Tumor Digital Pathology Challenge | |
| 2015 | MICCAI Gland Segmentation Challenge Contest | |
| 2016 | Tumor Proliferation Assessment Challenge 2016 | [ |
| 2017 | CAMELYON17 challenge | [ |
| 2018 | Medical Imaging with Deep Learning (MIDL-2018) | [ |
Overview open challenges of brain image analysis worldwide.
| Challenge | Objective | Modality | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BraTS 2012 | Brain Tumor Segmentation | MRI | [ |
| BraTS 2013 | Brain Tumor Segmentation | MRI | [ |
| BraTS 2014 | Brain Tumor Segmentation | MRI | [ |
| BraTS 2015 | Brain Tumor Segmentation | MRI | [ |
| BraTS 2016 | Quantifying longitudinal changes: evaluate the accuracies of the volumetric changes between any two time points. | MRI | [ |
| BraTS 2017 | Segmentation of gliomas in pre-operative scans. | MRI | [ |
| BraTS 2018 | Segmentation of gliomas in pre-operative MRI scans. | MRI | [ |
| MICCAI 2018 | The segmentation ofgray matter, white matter, cerebrospinal fluid, andother structureson multi-sequence brain MR images with and without (large) pathologies. (large) pathologies on segmentation and volumetry. | MRI | [ |
| HC-18 | To design an algorithm that can automatically measure the fetal head circumference given a 2D ultrasound image. | Ultrasound Image | [ |
Figure 3Working of ML-based algorithms.
Figure 4Brain MR images: (a) normal brain, (b) benign tumor (7 O’ clock arrow) and (c) malignant tumor (7 O’ clock arrow) (reproduced from [63] with permission).
Figure 5Process model of ANN-based classification model [63].
Figure 6Hybrid characterization system for brain cancer characterization [88].
Figure 7Illustration of different types as per their grades: row 1 and row 2 consists of T1ce brain images and its corresponding texture images, respectively. The images are pointed to by arrow are as follows: a1 (T1ce) and a2 (Texture): meningioma; b1 (T1ce) and b2 (Texture): Grade-II; c1 (T1ce), c2 (Texture): Grade-III; d1 (T1ce) and d2 (Texture): Grade-IV; e1 (T1ce) and e2 (Texture): metastasis (reproduced from [92] with permission).
Figure 8Process model using SVM-based grade estimation method [92].
Figure 9Process model of SVM-based grade estimation method [92].
Figure 10Extreme learning machine.
Figure 11CNN architecture (image courtesy: AtheroPointTM).
Figure 12Segmentation results from two different patients. Class1: ground truth; Class 2 (enhancing region): green; Class 3 (necrotic region): yellow, Class 4 (T1abnormality-hypointensity region on T1, excluding enhancing and necrotic regions): red, and Class 5 (FLAIR abnormality excluding classes 2-4): blue (reproduced from [102] with permission).
Figure 13Process model for segmentation [102].
Figure 14Segmentation results from two different patients. Green: edema, yellow: enhanced tumor, pink: necrosis, blue: non-enhanced tumor (reproduced from [103] with permission).
Figure 15Model Architecture (reproduced from [103] with permission).
Figure 16Plausible solution for brain tumor grading.
Figure 17Comparison of brain tumor with other brain disorders (image permission requested from sources). (a) Normal Brain [AtheroPointTM]; (b) Multiple Sclerosis [113]; (c) Stroke [114]; (d) Leukoaraiosis [115]; (e) Alzheimer’s Disease [116]; (f) Parkinson’s Disease [117]; (g) Wilson’sDisease [118]; (h) Brain Tumor [119].
Overview of Brain Tumor Classification Methods.
| Sno | Reference | Tissue Classes | MRI Subtype | Data Size | Feature Processing | Feature Reduction | Architecture for Classification | Highest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sasikala et al. 2008 | N, ABN, B, M | T2W | 100, | DWT | GA | ANN | ACC = 98%; SEN = NA; SPC = NA; AUC = NA |
| 2 | Verma et al. 2008 | Neoplasms, edema, and healthy tissue | DWI, B0, FLAIR, T1, and GAD | 14 | Bayesian, and SVM | ACC = NA; SEN = 91.84; | ||
| 3 | Zacharaki et al. 2009 [ | Metastasis, meningiomas gliomas (G-2-3) | T1W, T2W, FLAIR, rCBV | 102 | SVM, RFE | Feature Ranking | LDA, KNN, NL-SVM | ACC = 97.8%; SEN = 100%; |
| 4 | El-Dahshan et al. 2010 [ | N, ABN | T2W | 60, | DWT | PCA | FP-ANN, KNN | ACC = 98.6%; SEN = 100; |
| 5 | Ryu et al. 2014 | Glioma | DWI, ADC | 42 | GLCM | Entropy, Histogram | ACC = 84.4%; SEN = 81.8%; | |
| 6 | Skogenet al. 2016 [ | LGG (G-2), HGG (G-3-4) | T1W, T2W, FLAIR | 95 | Statistical Analysis | Standard Deviation | ACC = 84.4%; SEN = 93%; |
GLCM: Gray Level Co-Occurrence Matrix, NL-SVM: Nonlinear SVM, MDF: Most Discriminent Factor, LDA: Linear Discriminant Analysis, ADC: Apparent Diffusion Coefficient, GLCM: Gray Level Co Occurrence Matrix, GA: Genetic Algorithm, DWT: Discrete Wavelet Transform, SVM: Support Vector Machines, RFE: Recursive Feature Elimination, N: Normal, ABN: Abnormal, GBM: Glioblastomas, LGG: Low grade Glioma, HGG: High Grade Glioma, B: Benign, M: Malignant, T1W: T1-Weighted, T2W: T2 Weighted, FLAIR: Fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, rCBV: Relative cerebral blood volume, G: Grade, ANN: Artificial Neural Network, DWT: Discrete Wavelet Transform, FP-ANN: Feedforward, Back Propagation-ANN, ACC: Accuracy, SEN: Sensitivity, SPC: Specificity, AUC: Area Under Curve,. ROC: Receiver Operating Characteristic.