Lulu Yin1,2, Yan Liu1, Xi Zhang1, Hongbing Lu1, Yang Liu1. 1. School of Biomedical Engineering, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China. 2. Basic Medical Science Academy, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
Intratumor heterogeneity is partly responsible for the poor prognosis of glioblastoma (GBM) patients. In this study, we aimed to assess the effect of different heterogeneous subregions of GBM on overall survival (OS) stratification. A total of 105 GBM patients were retrospectively enrolled and divided into long-term and short-term OS groups. Four MRI sequences, including contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (T1C), T1, T2, and FLAIR, were collected for each patient. Then, 4 heterogeneous subregions, i.e. the region of entire abnormality (rEA), the regions of contrast-enhanced tumor (rCET), necrosis (rNec) and edema/non-contrast-enhanced tumor (rE/nCET), were manually drawn from the 4 MRI sequences. For each subregion, 50 radiomics features were extracted. The stratification performance of 4 heterogeneous subregions, as well as the performances of 4 MRI sequences, was evaluated both alone and in combination. Our results showed that rEA was superior in stratifying long-and short-term OS. For the 4 MRI sequences used in this study, the FLAIR sequence demonstrated the best performance of survival stratification based on the manual delineation of heterogeneous subregions. Our results suggest that heterogeneous subregions of GBMs contain different prognostic information, which should be considered when investigating survival stratification in patients with GBM.
Intratumor heterogeneity is partly responsible for the poor prognosis of glioblastoma (GBM) patients. In this study, we aimed to assess the effect of different heterogeneous subregions of GBM on overall survival (OS) stratification. A total of 105 GBM patients were retrospectively enrolled and divided into long-term and short-term OS groups. Four MRI sequences, including contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (T1C), T1, T2, and FLAIR, were collected for each patient. Then, 4 heterogeneous subregions, i.e. the region of entire abnormality (rEA), the regions of contrast-enhanced tumor (rCET), necrosis (rNec) and edema/non-contrast-enhanced tumor (rE/nCET), were manually drawn from the 4 MRI sequences. For each subregion, 50 radiomics features were extracted. The stratification performance of 4 heterogeneous subregions, as well as the performances of 4 MRI sequences, was evaluated both alone and in combination. Our results showed that rEA was superior in stratifying long-and short-term OS. For the 4 MRI sequences used in this study, the FLAIR sequence demonstrated the best performance of survival stratification based on the manual delineation of heterogeneous subregions. Our results suggest that heterogeneous subregions of GBMs contain different prognostic information, which should be considered when investigating survival stratification in patients with GBM.
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most damaging tumor of the brain, making
characterized by an almost unavoidable propensity to relapse after rigorous
treatment and carrying a fatal prognosis.
Despite advancement in surgical and medical therapies, the overall prognosis
of GBM patients remains poor, with a median survival of 10-14 months.
The past years have seen remarkable advances in GBM research, but this
progress has failed to yield significant improvements in prognosis. While the 1-year
survival rate is 50.6%,
the 5-year survival rate is only 9.8%.
Recent studies have indicated that intratumor heterogeneity is partly
responsible for the dismal outcome of GBM patients.
Assessing the effect of heterogeneity on survival stratification is therefore
critical for appropriate GBM clinical management.Currently, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has served as a noninvasive tool for the
survival analysis of GBMs.
An increasing number of radiomics studies aim to predict disease prognosis,
thereby providing beneficial information for personalized treatment from a variety
of imaging features extracted from multiple MRI.
Two researches utilized MRI features and corresponding criteria of the VASARI
(Visually Accessable REMBRANDT [Repository for Molecular Brain Neoplasia Data]
Images) and showed that such features improve the prediction of survival in GBM
patients over clinical features alone.
Another recent study also demonstrated that the incorporation of diffusion-
and perfusion-weighted MRI into an MRI radiomics model to allow for better
prognostication in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients improved its performance
over that achievable using clinical predictors alone.
We assessed GBM heterogeneity with MRI textures, which indicated that local
heterogeneity might play an important role in the survival stratification, while
global heterogeneity had little effect.
It further suggested that the tumor regions with high gray-levels or
intensity in postcontrast T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) might contribute more to the
prognosis of patients with GBM, and we could improve the prediction performance by
dividing the active tumor into several subregions in space.
Intratumor heterogeneity occurs at the molecular level and can be
macroscopically reflected by different phenotypes in MRI,
which are commonly identified as the region of contrast-enhancing tumor
(rCET), necrosis (rNec) and edema/non contrast-enhancing tumor (rE/nCET). Moreover,
with the help of multi-parametric MRI, the tumor region can specifically be
identified as active tumor and necrosis using T1WI images and edema by fluid
attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequences.
However, investigations into the effect of GBM heterogeneity on survival
stratification have reported contradictory results regarding the influence of
different heterogeneous subregions on the overall survival (OS) of GBM patients. One
study observed that the texture in active tumor (vAT) phenotype may predict the OS
of GBM patients.
Another study asserted that nonenhanced regions of GBM can be used to
identify patients with poor survival trends.
Which subregion is the most effective and whether their combinations can
improve the predictive performance, which modality or their combination could
benefit the prediction, are still unknown. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a
novel approach evaluating the influence of different subregions of GBM.In this study, we aimed to employ high-throughput radiomics features, which were
extracted from different GBM subregions of multimodal MRI, to discriminate long- and
short-term OS groups and to evaluate the performance of each subregion or subregions
combination for the OS stratification. With full utilization of the heterogenous
information contained in different subregions of GBMs, the proposed approach could
achieve a promising survival stratification performance.
Material and Methods
Patient Selection
In this study, all the GBM patients were collected from the Cancer Genome Atlas
(TCGA, https://wiki.cancerimagingarchive.net/display/Public/TCGA-GBM),
and the corresponding MRI data from the Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) were
retrospectively included.
A database consisting of 262 patients were included in this study basing
on the following criteria: (1) the patient previously underwent 4 MRI sequences
including contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (T1C), T1, T2, and FLAIR
sequences, (2) the patient had entire follow-up information, and (3) MRI scans
were performed before any treatments or interventions, and these patients were
subsequently diagnosed as GBM based on the histological examination. Among them,
157 patients were excluded based on the following criteria: (1) patients who
lacked certain MRI modalities (n = 107), (2) patients with poor image quality,
making the segmentation of GBM regions difficult and texture analysis inaccurate
(n = 17), and (3) patients who underwent MRI exams after surgery or biopsy (n =
33). Finally, 105 patients were eligible in this study and were divided into 2
groups based on their OS, i.e. long-term survival (OS ≥ 12 months, n = 57) and
short-term survival (OS < 12 months, n = 48). In this study, OS was
calculated from the initial pathologic diagnosis date to death or censored point
if still alive. The summary of patient characteristics of long-term and
short-term groups was listed in Table 1. Because all the patient data
in TCGA were deidentified, an institutional review board approval was
waived.
Table 1.
Summary of Patient Characteristics of Long-Term and Short-Term
Groups.
Group
Gender (male/female)
Age (years), (median, range)
Overall survival (days), (median, range)
Long-term group
36/21
57, 18-78
616, 368-1757
Short-term group
27/21
63.5, 40-84
150, 5-362
Summary of Patient Characteristics of Long-Term and Short-Term
Groups.
Image Data Acquisition and Preprocessing
Preoperative MRI data were collected from the archived database. The manufacturer
of the scanner included GE, Siemens, and Philip with the magnetic field
intensity ranged from 1.0 T, 1.5 T, and 3.0 T. The number of patients scanned by
using MRI scanners from different manufacturers and magnetic field intensity has
been summarized in Table
2.
Table 2.
Summary of the Number of Patients Scanned by Using MRI Scanners From
Different Manufacturers and Magnetic Field Intensity.
Manufacturer
Magnetic field intensity
Sum
3.0 T
1.5 T
1.0 T
Not recorded
GE
13
21
0
2
36
Siemens
5
12
0
0
17
Philips
8
4
0
0
12
Not recorded
15
18
1
6
40
Sum
41
55
1
8
105
Summary of the Number of Patients Scanned by Using MRI Scanners From
Different Manufacturers and Magnetic Field Intensity.Four MRI sequences were performed for each patient, including T1C, T1, T2, and
FLAIR. The T1C sequence was acquired with the following parameters: repetition
time (TR)/echo time (TE), 4.9-3285 msec/2.1-20 msec; slice thickness, 1-5 mm;
spacing slice, 0.6-7.5 mm. The major parameters for T1 imaging sequence included
TR/TE, 352-3379 msec/2.75-19 msec; slice thickness, 1-5 mm; spacing slice, 2-7.5
mm. The primary parameters for T2 imaging sequence included TR/TE, 700-6370
msec/15-120 msec; slice thickness, 1.5-5 mm; spacing slice, 1.5-7.5 mm. And the
predominant imaging parameters for the FLAIR sequence involved TR/TE, 6000-11000
msec/34.6-155 msec; slice thickness, 2.5-5 mm; spacing slice, 2-7.5 mm. The
matrix size of all the MRI sequences was either 256 × 256 or 512 × 512. In the
process of image acquisition, diverse parameters of different MRI sequences were
used, which may have a great influence on 3-dimensional (3D) analyses.
Therefore, 2-dimensional (2D) preprocessing was performed in this study.
Heterogenous Subregions Delineation
Considering the diverse parameters of these MRI sequences, image registration was
performed using the rigid transformation and mutual information. This process
was conducted by using the function of “imregister” derived from Matlab 2015.
Then, the axial slice of each imaging sequence was determined based on obtaining
the largest area of the GBM lesion for each patient. After that, all the images
were normalized using an in-house Collewet et al algorithm
developed by Matlab 2015.
To extract high throughput features, both original MRI images and
corresponding filtered images after wavelet transform were obtained. Then, 4 2D
heterogenous subregions were manually drawn, including (1) the 2D region of
entire abnormality (rEA) outlined on FLAIR image, (2) rCET and (3) rNec on T1C,
and (4) rE/nCET acquired by subtracting the union of rCET and rNec from rEA, as
shown in Figure 1. In
this study, all manual contours were created by 2 neuroradiologists with 12 and
8 years of MRI interpretation experience. They were blinded to the clinical
information about patients and worked together on outlined contours of each
patient for consensus reading, especially on those with discrepancies.
Figure 1.
The generation of 4 heterogenous subregions of GBM patients and the
wavelet transform process of each MRI modality. 1, Four heterogenous
subregions were manually drawn. 2, The original T1C, T1, T2, and FLAIR
images were decomposed into 4 new images in 4 decomposed directions (LL,
LH, HL, HH) by wavelet transform, respectively. L and H represent
low-pass and high-pass functions, respectively.
The generation of 4 heterogenous subregions of GBM patients and the
wavelet transform process of each MRI modality. 1, Four heterogenous
subregions were manually drawn. 2, The original T1C, T1, T2, and FLAIR
images were decomposed into 4 new images in 4 decomposed directions (LL,
LH, HL, HH) by wavelet transform, respectively. L and H represent
low-pass and high-pass functions, respectively.By changing the ratio of the high-frequency to low-frequency signals in the
images, the wavelet transform increases the information from the low-frequency
signal. L and H are a low-pass and high-pass function, respectively, I is the
original image, and the wavelet decompositions of I in 2 directions (x, y) are
labeled ILL, ILH, IHL, and IHH.
Then, we can obtain 4 new filtered images. The size of each filtered image is
equal to that of the original image and is shift-invariant. Therefore, 5 images
were acquired from each MRI sequence.
Radiomics Feature Extraction
Textural features are visual characteristics that reflect the homogeneous
appearance of images and the arrangement of the properties that change slowly or
periodically on the body surface. Textural features used in this study mainly
included histogram features and those derived from gray-level co-occurrence
matrix (GLCM), gray-level run-length texture matrix (GLRLM), and gray-level
size-zone matrix (GLSZM).
The detailed definition of these features has been published in our
previous articles.
The extraction process was performed using a publicly shared package
online available.
In this study, 13 GLCM features, 13 GLRLM features, and 13 GLSZM features
were extracted from the corresponding matrices. Each feature was calculated with
the average of the values generated from 4 directions (0°, 45°, 90°, and 135°)
and the pixel distance set as 1. Prior to the above 3 categories of feature
extraction, the grayscale of each ROI was normalized empirically to 16, to
obtain more distinguishable features, according to the results of our previous studies.
A total of 11 histogram-based features were applied to describe the
distribution of voxel intensities within the image, which have been listed in
supplemental material. As a result, a total of 4000 candidate radiomics features
were generated for each subject (50 radiomics features × 4 subregions × 5 images
× 4 MRI sequences). The feature extraction package was implemented using MATLAB
2015b (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA).
Feature Selection and Classification
To assess the performance of each subregion and MRI sequence when investigating
the survival stratification of GBM, the nonlinear support vector machine-based
recursive feature elimination (SVM-RFE) method was firstly performed on these 50
features set of single subregion or subregion combination to select and optimal
feature subset. Please refer to previous study
for the detailed mechanism of SVM-RFE. On the basis of the analysis of
each subregion, the optimal feature subsets of the 4 subregions were combined
and further selected by the SVM-RFE method. Then, based on the optimal feature
subset selected from different heterogenous subregion, we can build a model to
predict the survival stratifications of the GBM patients. After each
classification, the quantitative indices, namely the sensitivity, specificity,
accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating
characteristics (ROC), were calculated to evaluate the classification
performance. Furthermore, we evaluated the performances of 4 MRI sequences when
investigating the effect of GBM heterogeneity on survival stratification by
heterogenous subregions delineation.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software v. 22.0.00 (IBM Corp.,
New York, NY). The Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test were applied to
clinical characteristics to verify whether significant intergroup differences
existed. Two-sided P values < 0.05 were described as
statistically significant.
Results
Classification Performance With Four Heterogenous Subregions
The performance of OS stratification using optimal radiomics features from a
single subregion or combination of subregions in GBM patients with long- and
short-term survival times is compared in Table 3. In addition to the months of
OS (P < 0.01), there were no significant intragroup
differences of clinical characteristics. By comparing the efficiency of single
subregion, the role of rEA was more outstanding for stratifying long- and
short-term OS, with AUC = 0.9254, which was shown in Figure 2. The next one was the rE/nCET,
with AUC = 0.9083. By comparing the efficiency of subregion combination, the
4-region combination (rEA, rCET, rNec and rE/nCET) combination with AUC = 0.9591
and accuracy = 91.43%, outperformed the 3-subregion (rCET, rNec and rE/nCET)
combination with AUC = 0.9342 and accuracy = 89.52%.
Table 3.
The Performance of Single Subregion or Subregion Combination With the SVM
Classifier in Differentiating Long- and Short-Term Survival Time.
Single subregion or subregion combination
Sensitivity
Specificity
Accuracy
AUC
Number of optimal features
All
89.58% (43/48)
92.98% (53/57)
91.43% (96/105)
0.9591
21
rCET+ rNec+ rE/nCET
85.42% (41/48)
92.98% (53/57)
89.52% (94/105)
0.9342
57
rEA
85.42% (41/48)
87.72% (50/57)
86.67% (91/105)
0.9254
22
rCET
81.25% (39/48)
87.72% (50/57)
84.76% (89/105)
0.8596
10
rNec
85.42% (41/48)
84.21% (48/57)
84.76% (89/105)
0.8995
60
rE/nCET
87.5% (42/48)
89.47% (51/57)
88.57% (93/105)
0.9083
36
Abbreviations: rCET, regions of contrast-enhancing tumor; rNec,
regions of necrosis; rE, regions of edema; nCET,
non-contrast-enhancing tumor; rEA, the region of entire
abnormality.
Figure 2.
The efficiency of OS stratification using optimal radiomics features from
single subregion or subregion combination. By comparing the efficiency
of single subregion, the role of rEA was more outstanding for
stratifying long- and short-term OS, with AUC = 0.9254. The next one was
the rE/nCET, with AUC = 0.9083. By comparing the efficiency of subregion
combination, the 4-subregion combination (AUC = 0.9591 and accuracy =
91.43%) outperformed the 3-subregion combination (AUC = 0.9342 and
accuracy = 89.52%). The group of all means 4-subregion combination,
which contains rEA, rCET, rNec and rE/nCET.
The efficiency of OS stratification using optimal radiomics features from
single subregion or subregion combination. By comparing the efficiency
of single subregion, the role of rEA was more outstanding for
stratifying long- and short-term OS, with AUC = 0.9254. The next one was
the rE/nCET, with AUC = 0.9083. By comparing the efficiency of subregion
combination, the 4-subregion combination (AUC = 0.9591 and accuracy =
91.43%) outperformed the 3-subregion combination (AUC = 0.9342 and
accuracy = 89.52%). The group of all means 4-subregion combination,
which contains rEA, rCET, rNec and rE/nCET.The Performance of Single Subregion or Subregion Combination With the SVM
Classifier in Differentiating Long- and Short-Term Survival Time.Abbreviations: rCET, regions of contrast-enhancing tumor; rNec,
regions of necrosis; rE, regions of edema; nCET,
non-contrast-enhancing tumor; rEA, the region of entire
abnormality.
Classification Performance With Single MRI Modality
Furthermore, we assess the performance of each sequence (T1C, T1, T2, and FLAIR)
when investigating the effect of GBM heterogeneity on survival stratification by
heterogenous subregions delineation. In our previous study, we have found that
the tumor regions with high gray-levels or intensity in postcontrast T1 might
contribute more to the prognosis of patients with GBM.
But in this study, when 4 heterogenous subregions were manually drawn,
the performance of FLAIR sequence was the best, with AUC = 0.9101 and accuracy =
86.67%, and followed by that of T2 sequence, AUC = 0.8637 with and accuracy =
82.86%, as showed in Figure
3. The performance of each MRI sequence was also compared in Table 4.
Figure 3.
The efficiency of OS stratification using optimal radiomics features from
single MRI modality. The best accuracy and AUC were got when using FLAIR
images (AUC = 0.9101 and accuracy = 86.67%).
Table 4.
The Optimal Classification Performance of Different Sequence Using the
SVM Classifier.
Modality (sequence)
Sensitivity
Specificity
Accuracy
AUC
Number of optimal features
T1C
77.08% (37/48)
85.96% (49/57)
81.90% (86/105)
0.8596
16
T1
79.17% (38/48)
80.7% (46/57)
80.00% (84/105)
0.8447
40
T2
79.17% (38/48)
85.96% (49/57)
82.86% (87/105)
0.8637
18
FLAIR
85.41% (41/48)
87.72% (50/57)
86.67% (91/105)
0.9101
18
The efficiency of OS stratification using optimal radiomics features from
single MRI modality. The best accuracy and AUC were got when using FLAIR
images (AUC = 0.9101 and accuracy = 86.67%).The Optimal Classification Performance of Different Sequence Using the
SVM Classifier.
Discussion
GBMs are usually present with extensive areas of necrosis, pseudo-palisading,
vasogenic edema and infiltrative microscopic disease. It is clear that, despite a
lot of advancements made in the wide field of GBM molecular biology and the
development of new therapies based on this knowledge, there is still a long way to
go to fully understand this terrible disease.
MRI is the primary imaging modality for diagnosis and monitoring of GBM, and
integration of advanced MRI features with conventional MRI, may provide valuable
information for differentiating glioblastoma from solitary metastatic lesions.More and more studies show that precise segmentation of active tumor region and
perifocal edema extension from MRI is essential for planning stereotactic biopsy and
GBM surgery.
The previous study had shown that 4 out of 7 of the examined imaging features
were associated with survival.
These features were: tumor functional grade, necrosis grade, edema grade, and
enhancement grade.
Some studies also provided more evidence for the usefulness of imaging
features when predicting survival time.
In our previous studies, the results indicated that further spatial
segmentation of the active tumor into multiple subregions might improve survival stratification.In this study, we proposed the preoperative MRI-based radiomics extracted from
different subregions of GBM for survival stratification in patients. Results
demonstrated that local and regional heterogeneity may play an important role in the
survival stratification of patients with GBM. Meanwhile, different subregions in GBM
multimodal MRI had different stratification efficiencies.Considering the intratumor heterogeneity of GBMs, it is commonly critical to
determine which regions/volumes to be extracted for further analysis. In most of
previous GBM-related MRI studies, researchers usually focused on the rCET and
investigated its potential to grading or survival prediction. Most GBM
prognosis-related studies indicated the association between poor prognosis and
radiomics features from contrast-enhanced region.
However, in our experiments, the role of rEA was more outstanding for
stratifying long- and short-term OS by comparing the efficiency of single subregion,
and the next one was the rE/nCET. By comparing the efficiency of subregion
combination, the group of all 4-subregion (rEA, rCET, rNec and rE/nCET) combination
outperformed the 3-subregion (rCET, rNec and rE/nCET) combination.Despite the superiority of rEA in OS stratification, each subregion contained
specific microenvironment information that was fully represented by optimal
radiomics features and could complement each other. Therefore, the OS stratification
model of the 4-subregion combination achieved the best performance compared to any
other subregion combination or single subregion. According to the performance of
optimal features extracted from different MRI sequences, features from FLAIR images
achieved more favorable predictive performance than those from the other sequences
did for the OS stratification. These results further denote that important
information in the non-contrast-enhanced subregions and MRI sequence can be used for
improving the prognostic performance of GBM patients.However, the results of this study should be carefully interpreted due to several
limitations. First, the datasets enrolled in this retrospective study were
relatively limited. In future, a larger sum of datasets is required to further
validate the overall performance of the proposed strategy. Secondly, this study
required annotation of 4 different tumor subregions in each slice of each case,
which required an enormous amount of radiology work. considering the large section
thickness and spacing of most data, we used 2D texture analysis instead of 3D
analysis, which may have resulted in missing information. Thirdly, therapy
information was missing among a proportion of these patients, thus was not fully
considered in this study, which might be an important variation factor for OS
estimation. Finally, the pixel distance was set as 1 in calculating the GLCM and
GLRLM features. In future work, other pixel distance like 2 and 3 should be
evaluated in feature calculation and performance estimation.
Conclusion
In this study, we used the integrated optimal features of heterogeneous subregions in
multimodal MRI and machine learning models to evaluate the OS stratification
efficiency of each subregion or subregion combination. Meanwhile, different
subregions in GBM on multimodal MRI had different stratification efficiencies. rEA
and the FLAIR sequence may play a more important role in the survival stratification
of GBM patients by heterogeneous subregion delineation.Click here for additional data file.Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-tct-10.1177_15330338211033059 for The Effect of
Heterogenous Subregions in Glioblastomas on Survival Stratification: A Radiomics
Analysis Using the Multimodality MRI by Lulu Yin, Yan Liu, Xi Zhang, Hongbing Lu
and Yang Liu in Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment
Authors: Erwin G Van Meir; Costas G Hadjipanayis; Andrew D Norden; Hui-Kuo Shu; Patrick Y Wen; Jeffrey J Olson Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 508.702
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: Patrik Brynolfsson; David Nilsson; Roger Henriksson; Jón Hauksson; Mikael Karlsson; Anders Garpebring; Richard Birgander; Johan Trygg; Tufve Nyholm; Thomas Asklund Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Natalie R Boonzaier; Timothy J Larkin; Tomasz Matys; Anouk van der Hoorn; Jiun-Lin Yan; Stephen J Price Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Chris J Rose; John C Waterton; Richard A D Carano; Geoff J M Parker; Alan Jackson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531