Ying-Zhi Sun1, Lin-Feng Yan1, Yu Han1, Hai-Yan Nan1, Gang Xiao1, Qiang Tian1, Wen-Hui Pu2, Ze-Yang Li2, Xiao-Cheng Wei3, Wen Wang4, Guang-Bin Cui5. 1. Department of Radiology and Functional and Molecular Imaging Key Lab of Shaanxi Province, Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Medical University, 569 Xinsi Road, Xi'an, 710038, Shaanxi, China. 2. Student Brigade, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, 710032, Shaanxi, China. 3. GE Healthcare, Shanghai, 210000, China. 4. Department of Radiology and Functional and Molecular Imaging Key Lab of Shaanxi Province, Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Medical University, 569 Xinsi Road, Xi'an, 710038, Shaanxi, China. 40204024@qq.com. 5. Department of Radiology and Functional and Molecular Imaging Key Lab of Shaanxi Province, Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Medical University, 569 Xinsi Road, Xi'an, 710038, Shaanxi, China. cgbtd@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on conventional MRI images, it is difficult to differentiatepseudoprogression from true progressionin GBM patients after standard treatment, which isa critical issue associated with survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of machine learning using radiomics modelfrom T1-weighted contrast enhanced imaging(T1CE) in differentiating pseudoprogression from true progression after standard treatment for GBM. METHODS: Seventy-sevenGBM patients, including 51 with true progression and 26 with pseudoprogression,who underwent standard treatment and T1CE, were retrospectively enrolled.Clinical information, including sex, age, KPS score, resection extent, neurological deficit and mean radiation dose, were also recorded collected for each patient. The whole tumor enhancementwas manually drawn on the T1CE image, and a total of texture 9675 features were extracted and fed to a two-step feature selection scheme. A random forest (RF) classifier was trained to separate the patients by their outcomes.The diagnostic efficacies of the radiomics modeland radiologist assessment were further compared by using theaccuracy (ACC), sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: No clinical features showed statistically significant differences between true progression and pseudoprogression.The radiomic classifier demonstrated ACC, sensitivity, and specificity of 72.78%(95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45,0.91), 78.36%(95%CI: 0.56,1.00) and 61.33%(95%CI: 0.20,0.82).The accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of three radiologists' assessment were66.23%(95% CI: 0.55,0.76), 61.50%(95% CI: 0.43,0.78) and 68.62%(95% CI: 0.55,0.80); 55.84%(95% CI: 0.45,0.66),69.25%(95% CI: 0.50,0.84) and 49.13%(95% CI: 0.36,0.62); 55.84%(95% CI: 0.45,0.66), 69.23%(95% CI: 0.50,0.84) and 47.06%(95% CI: 0.34,0.61), respectively. CONCLUSION: T1CE-based radiomics showed better classification performance compared with radiologists' assessment.The radiomics modelwas promising in differentiating pseudoprogression from true progression.
BACKGROUND: Based on conventional MRI images, it is difficult to differentiatepseudoprogression from true progressionin GBM patients after standard treatment, which isa critical issue associated with survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of machine learning using radiomics modelfrom T1-weighted contrast enhanced imaging(T1CE) in differentiating pseudoprogression from true progression after standard treatment for GBM. METHODS: Seventy-sevenGBM patients, including 51 with true progression and 26 with pseudoprogression,who underwent standard treatment and T1CE, were retrospectively enrolled.Clinical information, including sex, age, KPS score, resection extent, neurological deficit and mean radiation dose, were also recorded collected for each patient. The whole tumor enhancementwas manually drawn on the T1CE image, and a total of texture 9675 features were extracted and fed to a two-step feature selection scheme. A random forest (RF) classifier was trained to separate the patients by their outcomes.The diagnostic efficacies of the radiomics modeland radiologist assessment were further compared by using theaccuracy (ACC), sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: No clinical features showed statistically significant differences between true progression and pseudoprogression.The radiomic classifier demonstrated ACC, sensitivity, and specificity of 72.78%(95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45,0.91), 78.36%(95%CI: 0.56,1.00) and 61.33%(95%CI: 0.20,0.82).The accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of three radiologists' assessment were66.23%(95% CI: 0.55,0.76), 61.50%(95% CI: 0.43,0.78) and 68.62%(95% CI: 0.55,0.80); 55.84%(95% CI: 0.45,0.66),69.25%(95% CI: 0.50,0.84) and 49.13%(95% CI: 0.36,0.62); 55.84%(95% CI: 0.45,0.66), 69.23%(95% CI: 0.50,0.84) and 47.06%(95% CI: 0.34,0.61), respectively. CONCLUSION: T1CE-based radiomics showed better classification performance compared with radiologists' assessment.The radiomics modelwas promising in differentiating pseudoprogression from true progression.
Authors: J Cha; S T Kim; H-J Kim; B-J Kim; Y K Kim; J Y Lee; P Jeon; K H Kim; D-S Kong; D-H Nam Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ke Nie; Liming Shi; Qin Chen; Xi Hu; Salma K Jabbour; Ning Yue; Tianye Niu; Xiaonan Sun Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Natalia Saltybaeva; Stephanie Tanadini-Lang; Diem Vuong; Simon Burgermeister; Michael Mayinger; Andrea Bink; Nicolaus Andratschke; Matthias Guckenberger; Marta Bogowicz Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-05-14
Authors: Orkhan Mammadov; Burak Han Akkurt; Manfred Musigmann; Asena Petek Ari; David A Blömer; Dilek N G Kasap; Dylan J H A Henssen; Nabila Gala Nacul; Elisabeth Sartoretti; Thomas Sartoretti; Philipp Backhaus; Christian Thomas; Walter Stummer; Walter Heindel; Manoj Mannil Journal: Heliyon Date: 2022-08-02