Literature DB >> 33594116

Uncertainty quantification in the radiogenomics modeling of EGFR amplification in glioblastoma.

Leland S Hu1,2,3, Lujia Wang4,5,6, Kristin R Swanson6,7, Jing Li4,5,6, Andrea Hawkins-Daarud6, Jennifer M Eschbacher8, Kyle W Singleton6, Pamela R Jackson6, Kamala Clark-Swanson6, Christopher P Sereduk7,9, Sen Peng10, Panwen Wang11, Junwen Wang11, Leslie C Baxter12, Kris A Smith13, Gina L Mazza14, Ashley M Stokes15, Bernard R Bendok7, Richard S Zimmerman7, Chandan Krishna7, Alyx B Porter16, Maciej M Mrugala16, Joseph M Hoxworth4, Teresa Wu4,5, Nhan L Tran7,9.   

Abstract

Radiogenomics uses machine-learning (ML) to directly connect the morphologic and physiological appearance of tumors on clinical imaging with underlying genomic features. Despite extensive growth in the area of radiogenomics across many cancers, and its potential role in advancing clinical decision making, no published studies have directly addressed uncertainty in these model predictions. We developed a radiogenomics ML model to quantify uncertainty using transductive Gaussian Processes (GP) and a unique dataset of 95 image-localized biopsies with spatially matched MRI from 25 untreated Glioblastoma (GBM) patients. The model generated predictions for regional EGFR amplification status (a common and important target in GBM) to resolve the intratumoral genetic heterogeneity across each individual tumor-a key factor for future personalized therapeutic paradigms. The model used probability distributions for each sample prediction to quantify uncertainty, and used transductive learning to reduce the overall uncertainty. We compared predictive accuracy and uncertainty of the transductive learning GP model against a standard GP model using leave-one-patient-out cross validation. Additionally, we used a separate dataset containing 24 image-localized biopsies from 7 high-grade glioma patients to validate the model. Predictive uncertainty informed the likelihood of achieving an accurate sample prediction. When stratifying predictions based on uncertainty, we observed substantially higher performance in the group cohort (75% accuracy, n = 95) and amongst sample predictions with the lowest uncertainty (83% accuracy, n = 72) compared to predictions with higher uncertainty (48% accuracy, n = 23), due largely to data interpolation (rather than extrapolation). On the separate validation set, our model achieved 78% accuracy amongst the sample predictions with lowest uncertainty. We present a novel approach to quantify radiogenomics uncertainty to enhance model performance and clinical interpretability. This should help integrate more reliable radiogenomics models for improved medical decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33594116      PMCID: PMC7886858          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-83141-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  39 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics predict epidermal growth factor receptor amplification status in glioblastoma.

Authors:  Manish Aghi; Paola Gaviani; John W Henson; Tracy T Batchelor; David N Louis; Fred G Barker
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 12.531

2.  The somatic genomic landscape of glioblastoma.

Authors:  Cameron W Brennan; Roel G W Verhaak; Aaron McKenna; Benito Campos; Houtan Noushmehr; Sofie R Salama; Siyuan Zheng; Debyani Chakravarty; J Zachary Sanborn; Samuel H Berman; Rameen Beroukhim; Brady Bernard; Chang-Jiun Wu; Giannicola Genovese; Ilya Shmulevich; Jill Barnholtz-Sloan; Lihua Zou; Rahulsimham Vegesna; Sachet A Shukla; Giovanni Ciriello; W K Yung; Wei Zhang; Carrie Sougnez; Tom Mikkelsen; Kenneth Aldape; Darell D Bigner; Erwin G Van Meir; Michael Prados; Andrew Sloan; Keith L Black; Jennifer Eschbacher; Gaetano Finocchiaro; William Friedman; David W Andrews; Abhijit Guha; Mary Iacocca; Brian P O'Neill; Greg Foltz; Jerome Myers; Daniel J Weisenberger; Robert Penny; Raju Kucherlapati; Charles M Perou; D Neil Hayes; Richard Gibbs; Marco Marra; Gordon B Mills; Eric Lander; Paul Spellman; Richard Wilson; Chris Sander; John Weinstein; Matthew Meyerson; Stacey Gabriel; Peter W Laird; David Haussler; Gad Getz; Lynda Chin
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 41.582

3.  Regional variation in histopathologic features of tumor specimens from treatment-naive glioblastoma correlates with anatomic and physiologic MR Imaging.

Authors:  Ramon F Barajas; Joanna J Phillips; Rupa Parvataneni; Annette Molinaro; Emma Essock-Burns; Gabriela Bourne; Andrew T Parsa; Manish K Aghi; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; Soonmee Cha; Susan M Chang; Sarah J Nelson
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 12.300

4.  Use of magnetic perfusion-weighted imaging to determine epidermal growth factor receptor variant III expression in glioblastoma.

Authors:  Elana S Tykocinski; Ryan A Grant; Gurpreet S Kapoor; Jaroslaw Krejza; Leif-Erik Bohman; Timothy A Gocke; Sanjeev Chawla; Casey H Halpern; Joanna Lopinto; Elias R Melhem; Donald M O'Rourke
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 12.300

5.  Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not.

Authors:  J L Boxerman; K M Schmainda; R M Weisskoff
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.825

6.  Magnetic resonance image features identify glioblastoma phenotypic subtypes with distinct molecular pathway activities.

Authors:  Haruka Itakura; Achal S Achrol; Lex A Mitchell; Joshua J Loya; Tiffany Liu; Erick M Westbroek; Abdullah H Feroze; Scott Rodriguez; Sebastian Echegaray; Tej D Azad; Kristen W Yeom; Sandy Napel; Daniel L Rubin; Steven D Chang; Griffith R Harsh; Olivier Gevaert
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 17.956

7.  Relationship between gene expression and enhancement in glioblastoma multiforme: exploratory DNA microarray analysis.

Authors:  Whitney B Pope; Jenny H Chen; Jun Dong; Marc R J Carlson; Alla Perlina; Timothy F Cloughesy; Linda M Liau; Paul S Mischel; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Albert Lai; Stanley F Nelson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  MR imaging predictors of molecular profile and survival: multi-institutional study of the TCGA glioblastoma data set.

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

9.  Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-09-09       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Radiomics and radiogenomics in pediatric neuro-oncology: A review.

Authors:  Rachel Madhogarhia; Debanjan Haldar; Sina Bagheri; Ariana Familiar; Hannah Anderson; Sherjeel Arif; Arastoo Vossough; Phillip Storm; Adam Resnick; Christos Davatzikos; Anahita Fathi Kazerooni; Ali Nabavizadeh
Journal:  Neurooncol Adv       Date:  2022-05-27

Review 2.  Radiomics and radiogenomics in gliomas: a contemporary update.

Authors:  Prateek Prasanna; Vadim Spektor; Gagandeep Singh; Sunil Manjila; Nicole Sakla; Alan True; Amr H Wardeh; Niha Beig; Anatoliy Vaysberg; John Matthews
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 7.640

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.