Xiaorui Su1,2, Ni Chen3,2, Huaiqiang Sun1, Yanhui Liu4,2, Xibiao Yang5, Weina Wang1, Simin Zhang1, Qiaoyue Tan1, Jingkai Su1, Qiyong Gong1, Qiang Yue5,2. 1. Huaxi MR Research Center, Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Huaxi Glioma Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 3. Department of Pathology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 5. Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional MRI cannot be used to identify H3 K27M mutation status. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of predicting H3 K27M mutation status by applying an automated machine learning (autoML) approach to the MR radiomics features of patients with midline gliomas. METHODS: This single-institution retrospective study included 100 patients with midline gliomas, including 40 patients with H3 K27M mutations and 60 wild-type patients. Radiomics features were extracted from fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images. Prior to autoML analysis, the dataset was randomly stratified into separate 75% training and 25% testing cohorts. The Tree-based Pipeline Optimization Tool (TPOT) was applied to optimize the machine learning pipeline and select important radiomics features. We compared the performance of 10 independent TPOT-generated models based on training and testing cohorts using the area under the curve (AUC) and average precision to obtain the final model. An independent cohort of 22 patients was used to validate the best model. RESULTS: Ten prediction models were generated by TPOT, and the accuracy obtained with the best pipeline ranged from 0.788 to 0.867 for the training cohort and from 0.60 to 0.84 for the testing cohort. After comparison, the AUC value and average precision of the final model were 0.903 and 0.911 in the testing cohort, respectively. In the validation set, the AUC was 0.85, and the average precision was 0.855 for the best model. CONCLUSIONS: The autoML classifier using radiomics features of conventional MR images provides high discriminatory accuracy in predicting the H3 K27M mutation status of midline glioma.
BACKGROUND: Conventional MRI cannot be used to identify H3 K27M mutation status. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of predicting H3 K27M mutation status by applying an automated machine learning (autoML) approach to the MR radiomics features of patients with midline gliomas. METHODS: This single-institution retrospective study included 100 patients with midline gliomas, including 40 patients with H3 K27M mutations and 60 wild-type patients. Radiomics features were extracted from fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images. Prior to autoML analysis, the dataset was randomly stratified into separate 75% training and 25% testing cohorts. The Tree-based Pipeline Optimization Tool (TPOT) was applied to optimize the machine learning pipeline and select important radiomics features. We compared the performance of 10 independent TPOT-generated models based on training and testing cohorts using the area under the curve (AUC) and average precision to obtain the final model. An independent cohort of 22 patients was used to validate the best model. RESULTS: Ten prediction models were generated by TPOT, and the accuracy obtained with the best pipeline ranged from 0.788 to 0.867 for the training cohort and from 0.60 to 0.84 for the testing cohort. After comparison, the AUC value and average precision of the final model were 0.903 and 0.911 in the testing cohort, respectively. In the validation set, the AUC was 0.85, and the average precision was 0.855 for the best model. CONCLUSIONS: The autoML classifier using radiomics features of conventional MR images provides high discriminatory accuracy in predicting the H3 K27M mutation status of midline glioma.
Authors: David A Solomon; Matthew D Wood; Tarik Tihan; Andrew W Bollen; Nalin Gupta; Joanna J J Phillips; Arie Perry Journal: Brain Pathol Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 6.508
Authors: David N Louis; Caterina Giannini; David Capper; Werner Paulus; Dominique Figarella-Branger; M Beatriz Lopes; Tracy T Batchelor; J Gregory Cairncross; Martin van den Bent; Wolfgang Wick; Pieter Wesseling Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Asgeir Store Jakola; Yi-Hua Zhang; Anne J Skjulsvik; Ole Solheim; Hans Kristian Bø; Erik Magnus Berntsen; Ingerid Reinertsen; Sasha Gulati; Petter Förander; Torkel B Brismar Journal: Clin Neurol Neurosurg Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 1.876
Authors: Elena V Daoud; Veena Rajaram; Chunyu Cai; Robert J Oberle; Gregory R Martin; Jack M Raisanen; Charles L White; Chan Foong; Bruce E Mickey; Edward Pan; Kimmo J Hatanpaa Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Joost J M van Griethuysen; Andriy Fedorov; Chintan Parmar; Ahmed Hosny; Nicole Aucoin; Vivek Narayan; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin; Steve Pieper; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Bjoern H Menze; Andras Jakab; Stefan Bauer; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keyvan Farahani; Justin Kirby; Yuliya Burren; Nicole Porz; Johannes Slotboom; Roland Wiest; Levente Lanczi; Elizabeth Gerstner; Marc-André Weber; Tal Arbel; Brian B Avants; Nicholas Ayache; Patricia Buendia; D Louis Collins; Nicolas Cordier; Jason J Corso; Antonio Criminisi; Tilak Das; Hervé Delingette; Çağatay Demiralp; Christopher R Durst; Michel Dojat; Senan Doyle; Joana Festa; Florence Forbes; Ezequiel Geremia; Ben Glocker; Polina Golland; Xiaotao Guo; Andac Hamamci; Khan M Iftekharuddin; Raj Jena; Nigel M John; Ender Konukoglu; Danial Lashkari; José Antonió Mariz; Raphael Meier; Sérgio Pereira; Doina Precup; Stephen J Price; Tammy Riklin Raviv; Syed M S Reza; Michael Ryan; Duygu Sarikaya; Lawrence Schwartz; Hoo-Chang Shin; Jamie Shotton; Carlos A Silva; Nuno Sousa; Nagesh K Subbanna; Gabor Szekely; Thomas J Taylor; Owen M Thomas; Nicholas J Tustison; Gozde Unal; Flor Vasseur; Max Wintermark; Dong Hye Ye; Liang Zhao; Binsheng Zhao; Darko Zikic; Marcel Prastawa; Mauricio Reyes; Koen Van Leemput Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Scott Ryall; Rahul Krishnatry; Anthony Arnoldo; Pawel Buczkowicz; Matthew Mistry; Robert Siddaway; Cino Ling; Sanja Pajovic; Man Yu; Joshua B Rubin; Juliette Hukin; Paul Steinbok; Ute Bartels; Eric Bouffet; Uri Tabori; Cynthia Hawkins Journal: Acta Neuropathol Commun Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 7.801
Authors: H Zhou; R Hu; O Tang; C Hu; L Tang; K Chang; Q Shen; J Wu; B Zou; B Xiao; J Boxerman; W Chen; R Y Huang; L Yang; H X Bai; C Zhu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 3.825