Kiran Aftab1, Faiqa Binte Aamir2, Saad Mallick2, Fatima Mubarak3, Whitney B Pope4, Tom Mikkelsen5, Jack P Rock6, Syed Ather Enam7. 1. Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. 2. Medical College, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. 3. Department of Radiology, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. 4. Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA. 7. Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. ather.enam@aku.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Being the most common primary brain tumor, glioblastoma presents as an extremely challenging malignancy to treat with dismal outcomes despite treatment. Varying molecular epidemiology of glioblastoma between patients and intra-tumoral heterogeneity explains the failure of current one-size-fits-all treatment modalities. Radiomics uses machine learning to identify salient features of the tumor on brain imaging and promises patient-specific management in glioblastoma patients. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive review of the available literature on studies investigating the role of radiomics and radiogenomics models for the diagnosis, stratification, prognostication as well as treatment planning and monitoring of glioblastoma. RESULTS: Classifiers based on a combination of various MRI sequences, genetic information and clinical data can predict non-invasive tumor diagnosis, overall survival and treatment response with reasonable accuracy. However, the use of radiomics for glioblastoma treatment remains in infancy as larger sample sizes, standardized image acquisition and data extraction techniques are needed to develop machine learning models that can be translated effectively into clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Radiomics has the potential to transform the scope of glioblastoma management through personalized medicine.
INTRODUCTION: Being the most common primary brain tumor, glioblastoma presents as an extremely challenging malignancy to treat with dismal outcomes despite treatment. Varying molecular epidemiology of glioblastoma between patients and intra-tumoral heterogeneity explains the failure of current one-size-fits-all treatment modalities. Radiomics uses machine learning to identify salient features of the tumor on brain imaging and promises patient-specific management in glioblastoma patients. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive review of the available literature on studies investigating the role of radiomics and radiogenomics models for the diagnosis, stratification, prognostication as well as treatment planning and monitoring of glioblastoma. RESULTS: Classifiers based on a combination of various MRI sequences, genetic information and clinical data can predict non-invasive tumor diagnosis, overall survival and treatment response with reasonable accuracy. However, the use of radiomics for glioblastoma treatment remains in infancy as larger sample sizes, standardized image acquisition and data extraction techniques are needed to develop machine learning models that can be translated effectively into clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Radiomics has the potential to transform the scope of glioblastoma management through personalized medicine.
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Timo M Deist; Jurgen Peerlings; Evelyn E C de Jong; Janita van Timmeren; Sebastian Sanduleanu; Ruben T H M Larue; Aniek J G Even; Arthur Jochems; Yvonka van Wijk; Henry Woodruff; Johan van Soest; Tim Lustberg; Erik Roelofs; Wouter van Elmpt; Andre Dekker; Felix M Mottaghy; Joachim E Wildberger; Sean Walsh Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: B M Ellingson; A Lai; R J Harris; J M Selfridge; W H Yong; K Das; W B Pope; P L Nghiemphu; H V Vinters; L M Liau; P S Mischel; T F Cloughesy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 3.825
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
Authors: Sylvia Drabycz; Gloria Roldán; Paula de Robles; Daniel Adler; John B McIntyre; Anthony M Magliocco; J Gregory Cairncross; J Ross Mitchell Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-09-28 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Maikel Verduin; Inge Compter; Danny Steijvers; Alida A Postma; Daniëlle B P Eekers; Monique M Anten; Linda Ackermans; Mark Ter Laan; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Tineke van de Weijer; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Ann Hoeben; Marc Vooijs Journal: Dis Markers Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 3.434
Authors: Houman Sotoudeh; Omid Shafaat; Joshua D Bernstock; Michael David Brooks; Galal A Elsayed; Jason A Chen; Paul Szerip; Gustavo Chagoya; Florian Gessler; Ehsan Sotoudeh; Amir Shafaat; Gregory K Friedman Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Felix Corr; Dustin Grimm; Benjamin Saß; Mirza Pojskić; Jörg W Bartsch; Barbara Carl; Christopher Nimsky; Miriam H A Bopp Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-03-04