Raphael Meier1,2, Aurélie Pahud de Mortanges1, Roland Wiest1,2, Urspeter Knecht3,4. 1. University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 2. Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3. ARTORG Center for Biomedical Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Neuroradiology, Regional Hospital Emmental, Burgdorf, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify qualitative VASARI (Visually AcceSIble Rembrandt Images) Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging features for differentiation of glioblastoma (GBM) and brain metastasis (BM) of different primary tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: T1-weighted pre- and post-contrast, T2-weighted, and T2-weighted, fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MR images of a total of 239 lesions from 109 patients with either GBM or BM (breast cancer, non-small cell (NSCLC) adenocarcinoma, NSCLC squamous cell carcinoma, small-cell lung cancer (SCLC)) were included. A set of adapted, qualitative VASARI MR features describing tumor appearance and location was scored (binary; 1 = presence of feature, 0 = absence of feature). Exploratory data analysis was performed on binary scores using a combination of descriptive statistics (proportions with 95% binomial confidence intervals), unsupervised methods and supervised methods including multivariate feature ranking using either repeated fitting or recursive feature elimination with Support Vector Machines (SVMs). RESULTS: GBMs were found to involve all lobes of the cerebrum with a fronto-occipital gradient, often affected the corpus callosum (32.4%, 95% CI 19.1-49.2), and showed a strong preference for the right hemisphere (79.4%, 95% CI 63.2-89.7). BMs occurred most frequently in the frontal lobe (35.1%, 95% CI 28.9-41.9) and cerebellum (28.3%, 95% CI 22.6-34.8). The appearance of GBMs was characterized by preference for well-defined non-enhancing tumor margin (100%, 89.8-100), ependymal extension (52.9%, 36.7-68.5) and substantially less enhancing foci than BMs (44.1%, 28.9-60.6 vs. 75.1%, 68.8-80.5). Unsupervised and supervised analyses showed that GBMs are distinctively different from BMs and that this difference is driven by definition of non-enhancing tumor margin, ependymal extension and features describing laterality. Differentiation of histological subtypes of BMs was driven by the presence of well-defined enhancing and non-enhancing tumor margins and localization in the vision center. SVM models with optimal hyperparameters led to weighted F1-score of 0.865 for differentiation of GBMs from BMs and weighted F1-score of 0.326 for differentiation of BM subtypes. CONCLUSION: VASARI MR imaging features related to definition of non-enhancing margin, ependymal extension, and tumor localization may serve as potential imaging biomarkers to differentiate GBMs from BMs.
OBJECTIVES: To identify qualitative VASARI (Visually AcceSIble Rembrandt Images) Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging features for differentiation of glioblastoma (GBM) and brain metastasis (BM) of different primary tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: T1-weighted pre- and post-contrast, T2-weighted, and T2-weighted, fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MR images of a total of 239 lesions from 109 patients with either GBM or BM (breast cancer, non-small cell (NSCLC) adenocarcinoma, NSCLC squamous cell carcinoma, small-cell lung cancer (SCLC)) were included. A set of adapted, qualitative VASARI MR features describing tumor appearance and location was scored (binary; 1 = presence of feature, 0 = absence of feature). Exploratory data analysis was performed on binary scores using a combination of descriptive statistics (proportions with 95% binomial confidence intervals), unsupervised methods and supervised methods including multivariate feature ranking using either repeated fitting or recursive feature elimination with Support Vector Machines (SVMs). RESULTS: GBMs were found to involve all lobes of the cerebrum with a fronto-occipital gradient, often affected the corpus callosum (32.4%, 95% CI 19.1-49.2), and showed a strong preference for the right hemisphere (79.4%, 95% CI 63.2-89.7). BMs occurred most frequently in the frontal lobe (35.1%, 95% CI 28.9-41.9) and cerebellum (28.3%, 95% CI 22.6-34.8). The appearance of GBMs was characterized by preference for well-defined non-enhancing tumor margin (100%, 89.8-100), ependymal extension (52.9%, 36.7-68.5) and substantially less enhancing foci than BMs (44.1%, 28.9-60.6 vs. 75.1%, 68.8-80.5). Unsupervised and supervised analyses showed that GBMs are distinctively different from BMs and that this difference is driven by definition of non-enhancing tumor margin, ependymal extension and features describing laterality. Differentiation of histological subtypes of BMs was driven by the presence of well-defined enhancing and non-enhancing tumor margins and localization in the vision center. SVM models with optimal hyperparameters led to weighted F1-score of 0.865 for differentiation of GBMs from BMs and weighted F1-score of 0.326 for differentiation of BM subtypes. CONCLUSION: VASARI MR imaging features related to definition of non-enhancing margin, ependymal extension, and tumor localization may serve as potential imaging biomarkers to differentiate GBMs from BMs.
Authors: Whitney B Pope; James Sayre; Alla Perlina; J Pablo Villablanca; Paul S Mischel; Timothy F Cloughesy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Manal Nicolasjilwan; Ying Hu; Chunhua Yan; Daoud Meerzaman; Chad A Holder; David Gutman; Rajan Jain; Rivka Colen; Daniel L Rubin; Pascal O Zinn; Scott N Hwang; Prashant Raghavan; Dima A Hammoud; Lisa M Scarpace; Tom Mikkelsen; James Chen; Olivier Gevaert; Kenneth Buetow; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Adam E Flanders; Max Wintermark Journal: J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 3.447
Authors: David A Gutman; Lee A D Cooper; Scott N Hwang; Chad A Holder; Jingjing Gao; Tarun D Aurora; William D Dunn; Lisa Scarpace; Tom Mikkelsen; Rajan Jain; Max Wintermark; Manal Jilwan; Prashant Raghavan; Erich Huang; Robert J Clifford; Pattanasak Mongkolwat; Vladimir Kleper; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Pascal O Zinn; Carlos S Moreno; Carl Jaffe; Rivka Colen; Daniel L Rubin; Joel Saltz; Adam Flanders; Daniel J Brat Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniel A Lim; Soonmee Cha; Mary C Mayo; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Evren Keles; Scott VandenBerg; Mitchel S Berger Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2007-07-10 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Tyler C Steed; Jeffrey M Treiber; Kunal Patel; Valya Ramakrishnan; Alexander Merk; Amanda R Smith; Bob S Carter; Anders M Dale; Lionel M L Chow; Clark C Chen Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-05-03
Authors: Tanja Schneider; Jan Felix Kuhne; Paul Bittrich; Julian Schroeder; Tim Magnus; Malte Mohme; Malte Grosser; Gerhard Schoen; Jens Fiehler; Susanne Siemonsen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rivka R Colen; Mark Vangel; Jixin Wang; David A Gutman; Scott N Hwang; Max Wintermark; Rajan Jain; Manal Jilwan-Nicolas; James Y Chen; Prashant Raghavan; Chad A Holder; Daniel Rubin; Eric Huang; Justin Kirby; John Freymann; Carl C Jaffe; Adam Flanders; Pascal O Zinn Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 3.063
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