E D H Gates1,2, J S Lin1,3,4, J S Weinberg1, S S Prabhu1, J Hamilton5, J D Hazle1, G N Fuller1, V Baladandayuthapani6, D T Fuentes1, D Schellingerhout7. 1. From the Departments of Imaging Physics (E.D.H.G., J.S.L., J.D.H., D.T.F.), Neurosurgery (J.S.W., S.S.P.), Pathology (G.N.F.), Neuroradiology (D.S.), and Cancer Systems Imaging (D.S.), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (E.D.H.G.), Houston, Texas. 3. Baylor College of Medicine (J.S.L.), Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Bioengineering (J.S.L.), Rice University, Houston, Texas. 5. Radiology Partners (J.H.), Houston, Texas. 6. Department of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics (V.B.), University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. From the Departments of Imaging Physics (E.D.H.G., J.S.L., J.D.H., D.T.F.), Neurosurgery (J.S.W., S.S.P.), Pathology (G.N.F.), Neuroradiology (D.S.), and Cancer Systems Imaging (D.S.), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas Dawid.Schellingerhout@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Gliomas are highly heterogeneous tumors, and optimal treatment depends on identifying and locating the highest grade disease present. Imaging techniques for doing so are generally not validated against the histopathologic criterion standard. The purpose of this work was to estimate the local glioma grade using a machine learning model trained on preoperative image data and spatially specific tumor samples. The value of imaging in patients with brain tumor can be enhanced if pathologic data can be estimated from imaging input using predictive models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with gliomas were enrolled in a prospective clinical imaging trial between 2013 and 2016. MR imaging was performed with anatomic, diffusion, permeability, and perfusion sequences, followed by image-guided stereotactic biopsy before resection. An imaging description was developed for each biopsy, and multiclass machine learning models were built to predict the World Health Organization grade. Models were assessed on classification accuracy, Cohen κ, precision, and recall. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (with 7/9/7 grade II/III/IV gliomas) had analyzable imaging-pathologic pairs, yielding 52 biopsy sites. The random forest method was the best algorithm tested. Tumor grade was predicted at 96% accuracy (κ = 0.93) using 4 inputs (T2, ADC, CBV, and transfer constant from dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging). By means of the conventional imaging only, the overall accuracy decreased (89% overall, κ = 0.79) and 43% of high-grade samples were misclassified as lower-grade disease. CONCLUSIONS: We found that local pathologic grade can be predicted with a high accuracy using clinical imaging data. Advanced imaging data improved this accuracy, adding value to conventional imaging. Confirmatory imaging trials are justified.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Gliomas are highly heterogeneous tumors, and optimal treatment depends on identifying and locating the highest grade disease present. Imaging techniques for doing so are generally not validated against the histopathologic criterion standard. The purpose of this work was to estimate the local glioma grade using a machine learning model trained on preoperative image data and spatially specific tumor samples. The value of imaging in patients with brain tumor can be enhanced if pathologic data can be estimated from imaging input using predictive models. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with gliomas were enrolled in a prospective clinical imaging trial between 2013 and 2016. MR imaging was performed with anatomic, diffusion, permeability, and perfusion sequences, followed by image-guided stereotactic biopsy before resection. An imaging description was developed for each biopsy, and multiclass machine learning models were built to predict the World Health Organization grade. Models were assessed on classification accuracy, Cohen κ, precision, and recall. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (with 7/9/7 grade II/III/IV gliomas) had analyzable imaging-pathologic pairs, yielding 52 biopsy sites. The random forest method was the best algorithm tested. Tumor grade was predicted at 96% accuracy (κ = 0.93) using 4 inputs (T2, ADC, CBV, and transfer constant from dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging). By means of the conventional imaging only, the overall accuracy decreased (89% overall, κ = 0.79) and 43% of high-grade samples were misclassified as lower-grade disease. CONCLUSIONS: We found that local pathologic grade can be predicted with a high accuracy using clinical imaging data. Advanced imaging data improved this accuracy, adding value to conventional imaging. Confirmatory imaging trials are justified.
Authors: Diane J Aum; David H Kim; Thomas L Beaumont; Eric C Leuthardt; Gavin P Dunn; Albert H Kim Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Evan D H Gates; Jonathan S Lin; Jeffrey S Weinberg; Jackson Hamilton; Sujit S Prabhu; John D Hazle; Gregory N Fuller; Veera Baladandayuthapani; David Fuentes; Dawid Schellingerhout Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 12.300
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: Melissa A Prah; Mona M Al-Gizawiy; Wade M Mueller; Elizabeth J Cochran; Raymond G Hoffmann; Jennifer M Connelly; Kathleen M Schmainda Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Kelvin K Leung; Matthew J Clarkson; Jonathan W Bartlett; Shona Clegg; Clifford R Jack; Michael W Weiner; Nick C Fox; Sébastien Ourselin Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Ken Chang; Harrison X Bai; Hao Zhou; Chang Su; Wenya Linda Bi; Ena Agbodza; Vasileios K Kavouridis; Joeky T Senders; Alessandro Boaro; Andrew Beers; Biqi Zhang; Alexandra Capellini; Weihua Liao; Qin Shen; Xuejun Li; Bo Xiao; Jane Cryan; Shakti Ramkissoon; Lori Ramkissoon; Keith Ligon; Patrick Y Wen; Ranjit S Bindra; John Woo; Omar Arnaout; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Paul J Zhang; Bruce R Rosen; Li Yang; Raymond Y Huang; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: Leland S Hu; Shuluo Ning; Jennifer M Eschbacher; Nathan Gaw; Amylou C Dueck; Kris A Smith; Peter Nakaji; Jonathan Plasencia; Sara Ranjbar; Stephen J Price; Nhan Tran; Joseph Loftus; Robert Jenkins; Brian P O'Neill; William Elmquist; Leslie C Baxter; Fei Gao; David Frakes; John P Karis; Christine Zwart; Kristin R Swanson; Jann Sarkaria; Teresa Wu; J Ross Mitchell; Jing Li Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: E D H Gates; J S Weinberg; S S Prabhu; J S Lin; J Hamilton; J D Hazle; G N Fuller; V Baladandayuthapani; D T Fuentes; D Schellingerhout Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 3.825
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