C G B Yogananda1, B R Shah1, S S Nalawade1, G K Murugesan1, F F Yu1, M C Pinho1, B C Wagner1, B Mickey2, T R Patel2, B Fei3, A J Madhuranthakam1, J A Maldjian4. 1. From the Advanced Neuroscience Imaging Research Lab (C.G.B.Y., B.R.S., S.S.N., G.K.M., F.F.Y., M.C.P., B.C.W., A.J.M., J.A.M.), Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 2. Department of Neurological Surgery (B.M., T.R.P.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 3. Department of Bioengineering (B.F.), University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas. 4. From the Advanced Neuroscience Imaging Research Lab (C.G.B.Y., B.R.S., S.S.N., G.K.M., F.F.Y., M.C.P., B.C.W., A.J.M., J.A.M.), Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas joseph.maldjian@utsouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: O6-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation confers an improved prognosis and treatment response in gliomas. We developed a deep learning network for determining MGMT promoter methylation status using T2 weighted Images (T2WI) only. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Brain MR imaging and corresponding genomic information were obtained for 247 subjects from The Cancer Imaging Archive and The Cancer Genome Atlas. One hundred sixty-three subjects had a methylated MGMT promoter. A T2WI-only network (MGMT-net) was developed to determine MGMT promoter methylation status and simultaneous single-label tumor segmentation. The network was trained using 3D-dense-UNets. Three-fold cross-validation was performed to generalize the performance of the networks. Dice scores were computed to determine tumor-segmentation accuracy. RESULTS: The MGMT-net demonstrated a mean cross-validation accuracy of 94.73% across the 3 folds (95.12%, 93.98%, and 95.12%, [SD, 0.66%]) in predicting MGMT methylation status with a sensitivity and specificity of 96.31% [SD, 0.04%] and 91.66% [SD, 2.06%], respectively, and a mean area under the curve of 0.93 [SD, 0.01]. The whole tumor-segmentation mean Dice score was 0.82 [SD, 0.008]. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate high classification accuracy in predicting MGMT promoter methylation status using only T2WI. Our network surpasses the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of histologic and molecular methods. This result represents an important milestone toward using MR imaging to predict prognosis and treatment response.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: O6-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation confers an improved prognosis and treatment response in gliomas. We developed a deep learning network for determining MGMT promoter methylation status using T2 weighted Images (T2WI) only. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Brain MR imaging and corresponding genomic information were obtained for 247 subjects from The Cancer Imaging Archive and The Cancer Genome Atlas. One hundred sixty-three subjects had a methylated MGMT promoter. A T2WI-only network (MGMT-net) was developed to determine MGMT promoter methylation status and simultaneous single-label tumor segmentation. The network was trained using 3D-dense-UNets. Three-fold cross-validation was performed to generalize the performance of the networks. Dice scores were computed to determine tumor-segmentation accuracy. RESULTS: The MGMT-net demonstrated a mean cross-validation accuracy of 94.73% across the 3 folds (95.12%, 93.98%, and 95.12%, [SD, 0.66%]) in predicting MGMT methylation status with a sensitivity and specificity of 96.31% [SD, 0.04%] and 91.66% [SD, 2.06%], respectively, and a mean area under the curve of 0.93 [SD, 0.01]. The whole tumor-segmentation mean Dice score was 0.82 [SD, 0.008]. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate high classification accuracy in predicting MGMT promoter methylation status using only T2WI. Our network surpasses the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of histologic and molecular methods. This result represents an important milestone toward using MR imaging to predict prognosis and treatment response.
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Panagiotis Korfiatis; Timothy L Kline; Daniel H Lachance; Ian F Parney; Jan C Buckner; Bradley J Erickson Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Spyridon Bakas; Hamed Akbari; Aristeidis Sotiras; Michel Bilello; Martin Rozycki; Justin S Kirby; John B Freymann; Keyvan Farahani; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Sci Data Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Kenneth Clark; Bruce Vendt; Kirk Smith; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Paul Koppel; Stephen Moore; Stanley Phillips; David Maffitt; Michael Pringle; Lawrence Tarbox; Fred Prior Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.056
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: Michele Ceccarelli; Floris P Barthel; Tathiane M Malta; Thais S Sabedot; Sofie R Salama; Bradley A Murray; Olena Morozova; Yulia Newton; Amie Radenbaugh; Stefano M Pagnotta; Samreen Anjum; Jiguang Wang; Ganiraju Manyam; Pietro Zoppoli; Shiyun Ling; Arjun A Rao; Mia Grifford; Andrew D Cherniack; Hailei Zhang; Laila Poisson; Carlos Gilberto Carlotti; Daniela Pretti da Cunha Tirapelli; Arvind Rao; Tom Mikkelsen; Ching C Lau; W K Alfred Yung; Raul Rabadan; Jason Huse; Daniel J Brat; Norman L Lehman; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Siyuan Zheng; Kenneth Hess; Ganesh Rao; Matthew Meyerson; Rameen Beroukhim; Lee Cooper; Rehan Akbani; Margaret Wrensch; David Haussler; Kenneth D Aldape; Peter W Laird; David H Gutmann; Houtan Noushmehr; Antonio Iavarone; Roel G W Verhaak Journal: Cell Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Sahil S Nalawade; Fang F Yu; Chandan Ganesh Bangalore Yogananda; Gowtham K Murugesan; Bhavya R Shah; Marco C Pinho; Benjamin C Wagner; Yin Xi; Bruce Mickey; Toral R Patel; Baowei Fei; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Joseph A Maldjian Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2022-01-27
Authors: Johannes Haubold; René Hosch; Vicky Parmar; Martin Glas; Nika Guberina; Onofrio Antonio Catalano; Daniela Pierscianek; Karsten Wrede; Cornelius Deuschl; Michael Forsting; Felix Nensa; Nils Flaschel; Lale Umutlu Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 6.639