Minjae Kim1, So Yeong Jung1, Ji Eun Park2, Yeongheun Jo3, Seo Young Park4, Soo Jung Nam5, Jeong Hoon Kim3, Ho Sung Kim1. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. jieunp@gmail.com. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. 4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. 5. Deparment of Pathology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MRI-based radiomics features can improve prediction of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation and tumor aggressiveness in lower grade gliomas (LGGs) METHODS: Radiomics features (n = 6472) were extracted from multiparametric MRI including conventional MRI, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and normalized cerebral blood volume, acquired on 127 LGG patients with determined IDH mutation status and grade (WHO II or III). Radiomics models were constructed using machine learning-based feature selection and generalized linear model classifiers. Segmentation stability was calculated between two readers using concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs). Diagnostic performance to predict IDH mutation and tumor grade was compared between the multiparametric and conventional MRI radiomics models using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The models were tested using a temporally independent validation set (n = 28). RESULTS: The multiparametric MRI radiomics model was optimized with a random forest feature selector, with segmentation stability of a CCC threshold of 0.8. For IDH mutation, multiparametric MR radiomics showed similar performance (AUC 0.795) to the conventional radiomics model (AUC 0.729). In tumor grading, multiparametric model with ADC features showed higher performance (AUC 0.932) than the conventional model (AUC 0.555). The independent validation set showed the same trend with AUCs of 0.747 for IDH prediction and 0.819 for tumor grading with multiparametric MRI radiomics model. CONCLUSION: Multiparametric MRI radiomics model showed improved diagnostic performance in tumor grading and comparable diagnostic performance in IDH mutation status, with ADC features playing a significant role. KEY POINTS: • The multiparametric MRI radiomics model was comparable with conventional MRI radiomics model in predicting IDH mutation. • The multiparametric MRI radiomics model outperformed conventional MRI in glioma grading. • Apparent diffusion coefficient played an important role in glioma grading and predicting IDH mutation status using radiomics.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MRI-based radiomics features can improve prediction of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation and tumor aggressiveness in lower grade gliomas (LGGs) METHODS: Radiomics features (n = 6472) were extracted from multiparametric MRI including conventional MRI, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and normalized cerebral blood volume, acquired on 127 LGG patients with determined IDH mutation status and grade (WHO II or III). Radiomics models were constructed using machine learning-based feature selection and generalized linear model classifiers. Segmentation stability was calculated between two readers using concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs). Diagnostic performance to predict IDH mutation and tumor grade was compared between the multiparametric and conventional MRI radiomics models using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The models were tested using a temporally independent validation set (n = 28). RESULTS: The multiparametric MRI radiomics model was optimized with a random forest feature selector, with segmentation stability of a CCC threshold of 0.8. For IDH mutation, multiparametric MR radiomics showed similar performance (AUC 0.795) to the conventional radiomics model (AUC 0.729). In tumor grading, multiparametric model with ADC features showed higher performance (AUC 0.932) than the conventional model (AUC 0.555). The independent validation set showed the same trend with AUCs of 0.747 for IDH prediction and 0.819 for tumor grading with multiparametric MRI radiomics model. CONCLUSION: Multiparametric MRI radiomics model showed improved diagnostic performance in tumor grading and comparable diagnostic performance in IDH mutation status, with ADC features playing a significant role. KEY POINTS: • The multiparametric MRI radiomics model was comparable with conventional MRI radiomics model in predicting IDH mutation. • The multiparametric MRI radiomics model outperformed conventional MRI in glioma grading. • Apparent diffusion coefficient played an important role in glioma grading and predicting IDH mutation status using radiomics.
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; Y Shigematu; T Hirai; T Okuda; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Komohara; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Brian B Avants; Nicholas J Tustison; Gang Song; Philip A Cook; Arno Klein; James C Gee Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Matthew D Wood; Byung Se Choi; Marc C Mabray; Nicholas A Butowski; Tarik Tihan; Soonmee Cha Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Meng Law; Stanley Yang; James S Babb; Edmond A Knopp; John G Golfinos; David Zagzag; Glyn Johnson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Gisele B Caseiras; Sophie Chheang; James Babb; Jeremy H Rees; Nicole Pecerrelli; Daniel J Tozer; Christopher Benton; David Zagzag; Glyn Johnson; Adam D Waldman; H R Jäger; Meng Law Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Forrest W Crawford; Inas S Khayal; Colleen McGue; Suja Saraswathy; Andrea Pirzkall; Soonmee Cha; Kathleen R Lamborn; Susan M Chang; Mitchel S Berger; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Martinus P G Broen; Marion Smits; Maarten M J Wijnenga; Hendrikus J Dubbink; Monique H M E Anten; Olaf E M G Schijns; Jan Beckervordersandforth; Alida A Postma; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 13.029
Authors: Russell T Shinohara; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Jeff Goldsmith; Navid Shiee; Farrah J Mateen; Peter A Calabresi; Samson Jarso; Dzung L Pham; Daniel S Reich; Ciprian M Crainiceanu Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2014-08-15 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Laura Mancini; Stefano Casagranda; Guillaume Gautier; Philippe Peter; Bruno Lopez; Lewis Thorne; Andrew McEvoy; Anna Miserocchi; George Samandouras; Neil Kitchen; Sebastian Brandner; Enrico De Vita; Francisco Torrealdea; Marilena Rega; Benjamin Schmitt; Patrick Liebig; Eser Sanverdi; Xavier Golay; Sotirios Bisdas Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Jun Zhang; Hong Peng; Yu-Lin Wang; Hua-Feng Xiao; Yuan-Yuan Cui; Xiang-Bing Bian; De-Kang Zhang; Lin Ma Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 6.244