I Shin1, H Kim1, S S Ahn2, B Sohn1, S Bae3, J E Park4, H S Kim4, S-K Lee1. 1. From the Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science and Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science (I.S., H.K., S.S.A., B.S., S.-K.L.), Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. From the Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science and Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science (I.S., H.K., S.S.A., B.S., S.-K.L.), Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea sungsoo@yuhs.ac. 3. Department of Radiology (S.B.), National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea. 4. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology (J.E.P., H.S.K.), Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differentiating glioblastoma from solitary brain metastasis preoperatively using conventional MR images is challenging. Deep learning models have shown promise in performing classification tasks. The diagnostic performance of a deep learning-based model in discriminating glioblastoma from solitary brain metastasis using preoperative conventional MR images was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 598 patients with histologically confirmed glioblastoma or solitary brain metastasis at our institution between February 2006 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative contrast-enhanced T1WI and T2WI were preprocessed and roughly segmented with rectangular regions of interest. A deep neural network was trained and validated using MR images from 498 patients. The MR images of the remaining 100 were used as an internal test set. An additional 143 patients from another tertiary hospital were used as an external test set. The classifications of ResNet-50 and 2 neuroradiologists were compared for their accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and area under the curve. RESULTS: The areas under the curve of ResNet-50 were 0.889 and 0.835 in the internal and external test sets, respectively. The area under the curve of neuroradiologists 1 and 2 were 0.889 and 0.768 in the internal test set and 0.857 and 0.708 in the external test set, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A deep learning-based model may be a supportive tool for preoperative discrimination between glioblastoma and solitary brain metastasis using conventional MR images.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differentiating glioblastoma from solitary brain metastasis preoperatively using conventional MR images is challenging. Deep learning models have shown promise in performing classification tasks. The diagnostic performance of a deep learning-based model in discriminating glioblastoma from solitary brain metastasis using preoperative conventional MR images was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 598 patients with histologically confirmed glioblastoma or solitary brain metastasis at our institution between February 2006 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative contrast-enhanced T1WI and T2WI were preprocessed and roughly segmented with rectangular regions of interest. A deep neural network was trained and validated using MR images from 498 patients. The MR images of the remaining 100 were used as an internal test set. An additional 143 patients from another tertiary hospital were used as an external test set. The classifications of ResNet-50 and 2 neuroradiologists were compared for their accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and area under the curve. RESULTS: The areas under the curve of ResNet-50 were 0.889 and 0.835 in the internal and external test sets, respectively. The area under the curve of neuroradiologists 1 and 2 were 0.889 and 0.768 in the internal test set and 0.857 and 0.708 in the external test set, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A deep learning-based model may be a supportive tool for preoperative discrimination between glioblastoma and solitary brain metastasis using conventional MR images.
Authors: S Cha; J M Lupo; M-H Chen; K R Lamborn; M W McDermott; M S Berger; S J Nelson; W P Dillon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Lee Villano; Eric B Durbin; Chris Normandeau; Jigisha P Thakkar; Valentina Moirangthem; Faith G Davis Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Jeanette E Eckel-Passow; Daniel H Lachance; Paul A Decker; Thomas M Kollmeyer; Matthew L Kosel; Kristen L Drucker; Susan Slager; Margaret Wrensch; W Oliver Tobin; Robert B Jenkins Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2022-03-12
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