BACKGROUND: Accurate detection of brain metastasis (BM) is important for cancer patients. We aimed to systematically review the performance and quality of machine-learning-based BM detection on MRI in the relevant literature. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for relevant studies reported before April 27, 2020. We assessed the quality of the studies using modified tailored questionnaires of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) criteria and the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Pooled detectability was calculated using an inverse-variance weighting model. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were included, which showed a clear transition from classical machine learning (cML) to deep learning (DL) after 2018. The studies on DL used a larger sample size than those on cML. The cML and DL groups also differed in the composition of the dataset, and technical details such as data augmentation. The pooled proportions of detectability of BM were 88.7% (95% CI, 84-93%) and 90.1% (95% CI, 84-95%) in the cML and DL groups, respectively. The false-positive rate per person was lower in the DL group than the cML group (10 vs 135, P < 0.001). In the patient selection domain of QUADAS-2, three studies (25%) were designated as high risk due to non-consecutive enrollment and arbitrary exclusion of nodules. CONCLUSION: A comparable detectability of BM with a low false-positive rate per person was found in the DL group compared with the cML group. Improvements are required in terms of quality and study design.
BACKGROUND: Accurate detection of brain metastasis (BM) is important for cancerpatients. We aimed to systematically review the performance and quality of machine-learning-based BM detection on MRI in the relevant literature. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for relevant studies reported before April 27, 2020. We assessed the quality of the studies using modified tailored questionnaires of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) criteria and the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Pooled detectability was calculated using an inverse-variance weighting model. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were included, which showed a clear transition from classical machine learning (cML) to deep learning (DL) after 2018. The studies on DL used a larger sample size than those on cML. The cML and DL groups also differed in the composition of the dataset, and technical details such as data augmentation. The pooled proportions of detectability of BM were 88.7% (95% CI, 84-93%) and 90.1% (95% CI, 84-95%) in the cML and DL groups, respectively. The false-positive rate per person was lower in the DL group than the cML group (10 vs 135, P < 0.001). In the patient selection domain of QUADAS-2, three studies (25%) were designated as high risk due to non-consecutive enrollment and arbitrary exclusion of nodules. CONCLUSION: A comparable detectability of BM with a low false-positive rate per person was found in the DL group compared with the cML group. Improvements are required in terms of quality and study design.
Authors: David S Ettinger; Douglas E Wood; Dara L Aisner; Wallace Akerley; Jessica Bauman; Lucian R Chirieac; Thomas A D'Amico; Malcolm M DeCamp; Thomas J Dilling; Michael Dobelbower; Robert C Doebele; Ramaswamy Govindan; Matthew A Gubens; Mark Hennon; Leora Horn; Ritsuko Komaki; Rudy P Lackner; Michael Lanuti; Ticiana A Leal; Leah J Leisch; Rogerio Lilenbaum; Jules Lin; Billy W Loo; Renato Martins; Gregory A Otterson; Karen Reckamp; Gregory J Riely; Steven E Schild; Theresa A Shapiro; James Stevenson; Scott J Swanson; Kurt Tauer; Stephen C Yang; Kristina Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Robert M Nishikawa; Robert A Schmidt; Michael N Linver; Alexandra V Edwards; John Papaioannou; Margaret A Stull Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: O Shearkhani; A Khademi; A Eilaghi; S-P Hojjat; S P Symons; C Heyn; M Machnowska; A Chan; A Sahgal; P J Maralani Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Paul Windisch; Carole Koechli; Susanne Rogers; Christina Schröder; Robert Förster; Daniel R Zwahlen; Stephan Bodis Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Raees Tonse; Muni Rubens; Haley Appel; Martin C Tom; Matthew D Hall; Yazmin Odia; Michael W McDermott; Manmeet S Ahluwalia; Minesh P Mehta; Rupesh Kotecha Journal: Discov Oncol Date: 2021-11-08
Authors: Simon Williams; Hugo Layard Horsfall; Jonathan P Funnell; John G Hanrahan; Danyal Z Khan; William Muirhead; Danail Stoyanov; Hani J Marcus Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Leon Jekel; Waverly R Brim; Marc von Reppert; Lawrence Staib; Gabriel Cassinelli Petersen; Sara Merkaj; Harry Subramanian; Tal Zeevi; Seyedmehdi Payabvash; Khaled Bousabarah; MingDe Lin; Jin Cui; Alexandria Brackett; Amit Mahajan; Antonio Omuro; Michele H Johnson; Veronica L Chiang; Ajay Malhotra; Björn Scheffler; Mariam S Aboian Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 6.639