L S Hu1, H Yoon2, J M Eschbacher3, L C Baxter4, A C Dueck5, A Nespodzany4, K A Smith6, P Nakaji6, Y Xu2, L Wang2, J P Karis4, A J Hawkins-Daarud7, K W Singleton7, P R Jackson7, B J Anderies8, B R Bendok7,8, R S Zimmerman8, C Quarles9, A B Porter-Umphrey10, M M Mrugala10, A Sharma10, J M Hoxworth11, M G Sattur8, N Sanai6, P E Koulemberis8, C Krishna8, J R Mitchell11,12, T Wu11,2, N L Tran13, K R Swanson7,8, J Li11,2. 1. From the Department of Radiology (L.S.H., J.M.H., J.R.M., T.W., J.L.) Hu.Leland@Mayo.Edu. 2. Arizona State University (H.Y., Y.X., L.W., T.W., J.L.), Tempe, Arizona. 3. Departments of Pathology (J.M.E.). 4. Radiology (L.C.B., A.N., J.P.K.). 5. Department of Biostatistics (A.C.D.), Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona. 6. Neurosurgery (K.A.S., P.N., N.S.). 7. Precision Neurotherapeutics Lab (A.J.H.-D., K.W.S., P.R.J, B.R.B., K.R.S.). 8. Department of Neurosurgery (B.J.A., B.R.B., R.S.Z., M.G.S., P.E.K., C.K., K.R.S.). 9. Neuroimaging Research (C.Q.), Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona. 10. Department of Neuro-Oncology (A.B.P.-U., M.M.M., A.S.). 11. From the Department of Radiology (L.S.H., J.M.H., J.R.M., T.W., J.L.). 12. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute (J.R.M.), Tampa, Florida. 13. Department of Cancer Biology (N.L.T.), Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR imaging-based modeling of tumor cell density can substantially improve targeted treatment of glioblastoma. Unfortunately, interpatient variability limits the predictive ability of many modeling approaches. We present a transfer learning method that generates individualized patient models, grounded in the wealth of population data, while also detecting and adjusting for interpatient variabilities based on each patient's own histologic data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited patients with primary glioblastoma undergoing image-guided biopsies and preoperative imaging, including contrast-enhanced MR imaging, dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging, and diffusion tensor imaging. We calculated relative cerebral blood volume from DSC-MR imaging and mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy from DTI. Following image coregistration, we assessed tumor cell density for each biopsy and identified corresponding localized MR imaging measurements. We then explored a range of univariate and multivariate predictive models of tumor cell density based on MR imaging measurements in a generalized one-model-fits-all approach. We then implemented both univariate and multivariate individualized transfer learning predictive models, which harness the available population-level data but allow individual variability in their predictions. Finally, we compared Pearson correlation coefficients and mean absolute error between the individualized transfer learning and generalized one-model-fits-all models. RESULTS: Tumor cell density significantly correlated with relative CBV (r = 0.33, P < .001), and T1-weighted postcontrast (r = 0.36, P < .001) on univariate analysis after correcting for multiple comparisons. With single-variable modeling (using relative CBV), transfer learning increased predictive performance (r = 0.53, mean absolute error = 15.19%) compared with one-model-fits-all (r = 0.27, mean absolute error = 17.79%). With multivariate modeling, transfer learning further improved performance (r = 0.88, mean absolute error = 5.66%) compared with one-model-fits-all (r = 0.39, mean absolute error = 16.55%). CONCLUSIONS: Transfer learning significantly improves predictive modeling performance for quantifying tumor cell density in glioblastoma.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR imaging-based modeling of tumor cell density can substantially improve targeted treatment of glioblastoma. Unfortunately, interpatient variability limits the predictive ability of many modeling approaches. We present a transfer learning method that generates individualized patient models, grounded in the wealth of population data, while also detecting and adjusting for interpatient variabilities based on each patient's own histologic data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited patients with primary glioblastoma undergoing image-guided biopsies and preoperative imaging, including contrast-enhanced MR imaging, dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging, and diffusion tensor imaging. We calculated relative cerebral blood volume from DSC-MR imaging and mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy from DTI. Following image coregistration, we assessed tumor cell density for each biopsy and identified corresponding localized MR imaging measurements. We then explored a range of univariate and multivariate predictive models of tumor cell density based on MR imaging measurements in a generalized one-model-fits-all approach. We then implemented both univariate and multivariate individualized transfer learning predictive models, which harness the available population-level data but allow individual variability in their predictions. Finally, we compared Pearson correlation coefficients and mean absolute error between the individualized transfer learning and generalized one-model-fits-all models. RESULTS:Tumor cell density significantly correlated with relative CBV (r = 0.33, P < .001), and T1-weighted postcontrast (r = 0.36, P < .001) on univariate analysis after correcting for multiple comparisons. With single-variable modeling (using relative CBV), transfer learning increased predictive performance (r = 0.53, mean absolute error = 15.19%) compared with one-model-fits-all (r = 0.27, mean absolute error = 17.79%). With multivariate modeling, transfer learning further improved performance (r = 0.88, mean absolute error = 5.66%) compared with one-model-fits-all (r = 0.39, mean absolute error = 16.55%). CONCLUSIONS: Transfer learning significantly improves predictive modeling performance for quantifying tumor cell density in glioblastoma.
Authors: Christopher R Durst; Prashant Raghavan; Mark E Shaffrey; David Schiff; M Beatriz Lopes; Jason P Sheehan; Nicholas J Tustison; James T Patrie; Wenjun Xin; W Jeff Elias; Kenneth C Liu; Greg A Helm; A Cupino; Max Wintermark Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2013-12-15 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: L S Hu; Z Kelm; P Korfiatis; A C Dueck; C Elrod; B M Ellingson; T J Kaufmann; J M Eschbacher; J P Karis; K Smith; P Nakaji; D Brinkman; D Pafundi; L C Baxter; B J Erickson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ramon F Barajas; Joanna J Phillips; Rupa Parvataneni; Annette Molinaro; Emma Essock-Burns; Gabriela Bourne; Andrew T Parsa; Manish K Aghi; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; Soonmee Cha; Susan M Chang; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: P D Chang; H R Malone; S G Bowden; D S Chow; B J A Gill; T H Ung; J Samanamud; Z K Englander; A M Sonabend; S A Sheth; G M McKhann; M B Sisti; L H Schwartz; A Lignelli; J Grinband; J N Bruce; P Canoll Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: N Sadeghi; N D'Haene; C Decaestecker; M Levivier; T Metens; C Maris; D Wikler; D Baleriaux; I Salmon; S Goldman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-12-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ramon F Barajas; J Graeme Hodgson; Jamie S Chang; Scott R Vandenberg; Ru-Fang Yeh; Andrew T Parsa; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; William P Dillon; Soonmee Cha Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Peter S LaViolette; Nikolai J Mickevicius; Elizabeth J Cochran; Scott D Rand; Jennifer Connelly; Joseph A Bovi; Mark G Malkin; Wade M Mueller; Kathleen M Schmainda Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: S J Price; R Jena; N G Burnet; P J Hutchinson; A F Dean; A Peña; J D Pickard; T A Carpenter; J H Gillard Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Anne L Baldock; Sunyoung Ahn; Russell Rockne; Sandra Johnston; Maxwell Neal; David Corwin; Kamala Clark-Swanson; Greg Sterin; Andrew D Trister; Hani Malone; Victoria Ebiana; Adam M Sonabend; Maciej Mrugala; Jason K Rockhill; Daniel L Silbergeld; Albert Lai; Timothy Cloughesy; Guy M McKhann; Jeffrey N Bruce; Robert C Rostomily; Peter Canoll; Kristin R Swanson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jill A Gallaher; Susan C Massey; Andrea Hawkins-Daarud; Sonal S Noticewala; Russell C Rockne; Sandra K Johnston; Luis Gonzalez-Cuyar; Joseph Juliano; Orlando Gil; Kristin R Swanson; Peter Canoll; Alexander R A Anderson Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 4.475
Authors: Clara Le Fèvre; Roger Sun; Hélène Cebula; Alicia Thiery; Delphine Antoni; Roland Schott; François Proust; Jean-Marc Constans; Georges Noël Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.996