1
|
Isolan GR, Bark SA, Monteiro JM, Mattei TA, Yağmurlu K, Gonçalves RF, Malafaia O, Roesler R, Filho JMR. Porto Alegre Line predicts lenticulostriate arteries encasement and extent of resection in insular gliomas. A preliminary study. Front Surg 2025; 12:1414302. [PMID: 39996150 PMCID: PMC11847845 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2025.1414302] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2024] [Accepted: 01/07/2025] [Indexed: 02/26/2025] Open
Abstract
Object In insular glioma surgery, lenticulostriate arteries (LSTa) tumoral encasement increases neurological deficits risk despite intensive efforts to preserve the internal capsule's integrity. In this study, we focus on the LSTa relationships with the medial aspect of the insular tumors. We propose a new non-invasive method for LSTa involvement prediction in preoperative MRI (Porto Alegre Line). We compare it with direct intraoperative encased LSTa visualization. Methods A retrospective review of our database of 52 patients of insular glioma was performed. In cases with no tumor located medial to Porto Alegre line, our medial resection limit, mainly for the tumor part located next to the limen insula, was the inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus (IFOF), identified through altered speech patterns during electric subcortical stimulation. In cases with no assumed LSTa involvement, the parameter used to stop resection was the confirmation of the corticospinal tract with 10-mA stimulus. The resection limit of tumors placed medially to the Porto Alegre line was intraoperative direct LSTa visualization. Results The LSTa involvement was the most critical medial limiting factor in more aggressive tumor resection and an excellent overall survival (P = 0.022). In cases in which there were direct intraoperative LSTa encasement visualization, Porto Alegre Line was employed as an MRI preoperative landmark for prediction of LSTa involvement in those patients with Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Values of 1, 0.975 and 0.923, respectively. Conclusion We have found that LSTa encasement is a limiting factor to reach a satisfactory extent of resection and that Porto Alegre Line can predict it.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gustavo Rassier Isolan
- Graduate Program in Principles of Surgery, Mackenzie Evangelical University, Curitiba, Brazil
- National Science and Technology Institute for Children's Cancer Biology and Pediatric Oncology—INCT BioOncoPed, Porto Alegre, Brazil
- The Center for Advanced Neurology and Neurosurgery (CEANNE), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Samir Ale Bark
- Graduate Program in Principles of Surgery, Mackenzie Evangelical University, Curitiba, Brazil
- The Center for Advanced Neurology and Neurosurgery (CEANNE), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Jander Moreira Monteiro
- Graduate Program in Principles of Surgery, Mackenzie Evangelical University, Curitiba, Brazil
- The Center for Advanced Neurology and Neurosurgery (CEANNE), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Tobias A. Mattei
- Division of Neurological Surgery, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, United States
| | - Kaan Yağmurlu
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States
| | - Rafaela Fernandes Gonçalves
- Graduate Program in Principles of Surgery, Mackenzie Evangelical University, Curitiba, Brazil
- The Center for Advanced Neurology and Neurosurgery (CEANNE), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Osvaldo Malafaia
- The Center for Advanced Neurology and Neurosurgery (CEANNE), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Rafael Roesler
- National Science and Technology Institute for Children's Cancer Biology and Pediatric Oncology—INCT BioOncoPed, Porto Alegre, Brazil
- Department of Pharmacology, Institute for Basic Health Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
- Cancer and Neurobiology Laboratory, Experimental Research Center, Clinical Hospital (CPE-HCPA), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bonada M, Rossi LF, Carone G, Panico F, Cofano F, Fiaschi P, Garbossa D, Di Meco F, Bianconi A. Deep Learning for MRI Segmentation and Molecular Subtyping in Glioblastoma: Critical Aspects from an Emerging Field. Biomedicines 2024; 12:1878. [PMID: 39200342 PMCID: PMC11352020 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12081878] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2024] [Revised: 07/29/2024] [Accepted: 07/31/2024] [Indexed: 09/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) has been applied to glioblastoma (GBM) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment for tumor segmentation and inference of molecular, diagnostic, and prognostic information. We comprehensively overviewed the currently available DL applications, critically examining the limitations that hinder their broader adoption in clinical practice and molecular research. Technical limitations to the routine application of DL include the qualitative heterogeneity of MRI, related to different machinery and protocols, and the absence of informative sequences, possibly compensated by artificial image synthesis. Moreover, taking advantage from the available benchmarks of MRI, algorithms should be trained on large amounts of data. Additionally, the segmentation of postoperative imaging should be further addressed to limit the inaccuracies previously observed for this task. Indeed, molecular information has been promisingly integrated in the most recent DL tools, providing useful prognostic and therapeutic information. Finally, ethical concerns should be carefully addressed and standardized to allow for data protection. DL has provided reliable results for GBM assessment concerning MRI analysis and segmentation, but the routine clinical application is still limited. The current limitations could be prospectively addressed, giving particular attention to data collection, introducing new technical advancements, and carefully regulating ethical issues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Bonada
- Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Via Cherasco 15, 10126 Turin, Italy; (M.B.); (F.C.); (D.G.)
- Department of Neurosurgery, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Via Celoria 11, 20133 Milan, Italy; (G.C.)
| | - Luca Francesco Rossi
- Department of Informatics, Polytechnic University of Turin, Corso Castelfidardo 39, 10129 Turin, Italy;
| | - Giovanni Carone
- Department of Neurosurgery, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Via Celoria 11, 20133 Milan, Italy; (G.C.)
| | - Flavio Panico
- Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Via Cherasco 15, 10126 Turin, Italy; (M.B.); (F.C.); (D.G.)
| | - Fabio Cofano
- Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Via Cherasco 15, 10126 Turin, Italy; (M.B.); (F.C.); (D.G.)
| | - Pietro Fiaschi
- Division of Neurosurgery, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, IRCCS for Oncology and Neurosciences, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, Italy;
- Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics and Maternal and Child Health, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Diego Garbossa
- Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Via Cherasco 15, 10126 Turin, Italy; (M.B.); (F.C.); (D.G.)
| | - Francesco Di Meco
- Department of Neurosurgery, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Via Celoria 11, 20133 Milan, Italy; (G.C.)
| | - Andrea Bianconi
- Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Via Cherasco 15, 10126 Turin, Italy; (M.B.); (F.C.); (D.G.)
- Division of Neurosurgery, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, IRCCS for Oncology and Neurosciences, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Luque L, Skogen K, MacIntosh BJ, Emblem KE, Larsson C, Bouget D, Helland RH, Reinertsen I, Solheim O, Schellhorn T, Vardal J, Mireles EEM, Vik-Mo EO, Bjørnerud A. Standardized evaluation of the extent of resection in glioblastoma with automated early post-operative segmentation. FRONTIERS IN RADIOLOGY 2024; 4:1357341. [PMID: 38840717 PMCID: PMC11150796 DOI: 10.3389/fradi.2024.1357341] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2023] [Accepted: 05/06/2024] [Indexed: 06/07/2024]
Abstract
Standard treatment of patients with glioblastoma includes surgical resection of the tumor. The extent of resection (EOR) achieved during surgery significantly impacts prognosis and is used to stratify patients in clinical trials. In this study, we developed a U-Net-based deep-learning model to segment contrast-enhancing tumor on post-operative MRI exams taken within 72 h of resection surgery and used these segmentations to classify the EOR as either maximal or submaximal. The model was trained on 122 multiparametric MRI scans from our institution and achieved a mean Dice score of 0.52 ± 0.03 on an external dataset (n = 248), a performance -on par with the interrater agreement between expert annotators as reported in literature. We obtained an EOR classification precision/recall of 0.72/0.78 on the internal test dataset (n = 462) and 0.90/0.87 on the external dataset. Furthermore, Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare the overall survival between patients with maximal and submaximal resection in the internal test dataset, as determined by either clinicians or the model. There was no significant difference between the survival predictions using the model's and clinical EOR classification. We find that the proposed segmentation model is capable of reliably classifying the EOR of glioblastoma tumors on early post-operative MRI scans. Moreover, we show that stratification of patients based on the model's predictions offers at least the same prognostic value as when done by clinicians.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lidia Luque
- Computational Radiology and Artificial Intelligence (CRAI), Department of Physics and Computational Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Physics and Computational Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Karoline Skogen
- Department of Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Bradley J. MacIntosh
- Computational Radiology and Artificial Intelligence (CRAI), Department of Physics and Computational Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Physics and Computational Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Sandra E Black Centre for Brain Resilience and Recovery, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Kyrre E. Emblem
- Department of Physics and Computational Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Christopher Larsson
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - David Bouget
- Department of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Ragnhild Holden Helland
- Department of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
| | - Ingerid Reinertsen
- Department of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
| | - Ole Solheim
- Department of Neurosurgery, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
| | - Till Schellhorn
- Computational Radiology and Artificial Intelligence (CRAI), Department of Physics and Computational Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Jonas Vardal
- Department of Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Eduardo E. M. Mireles
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Einar O. Vik-Mo
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Atle Bjørnerud
- Computational Radiology and Artificial Intelligence (CRAI), Department of Physics and Computational Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Physics and Computational Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Center for Lifespan Changes in Brain and Cognition, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Helland RH, Ferles A, Pedersen A, Kommers I, Ardon H, Barkhof F, Bello L, Berger MS, Dunås T, Nibali MC, Furtner J, Hervey-Jumper S, Idema AJS, Kiesel B, Tewari RN, Mandonnet E, Müller DMJ, Robe PA, Rossi M, Sagberg LM, Sciortino T, Aalders T, Wagemakers M, Widhalm G, Witte MG, Zwinderman AH, Majewska PL, Jakola AS, Solheim O, Hamer PCDW, Reinertsen I, Eijgelaar RS, Bouget D. Segmentation of glioblastomas in early post-operative multi-modal MRI with deep neural networks. Sci Rep 2023; 13:18897. [PMID: 37919325 PMCID: PMC10622432 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-45456-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2023] [Accepted: 10/19/2023] [Indexed: 11/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Extent of resection after surgery is one of the main prognostic factors for patients diagnosed with glioblastoma. To achieve this, accurate segmentation and classification of residual tumor from post-operative MR images is essential. The current standard method for estimating it is subject to high inter- and intra-rater variability, and an automated method for segmentation of residual tumor in early post-operative MRI could lead to a more accurate estimation of extent of resection. In this study, two state-of-the-art neural network architectures for pre-operative segmentation were trained for the task. The models were extensively validated on a multicenter dataset with nearly 1000 patients, from 12 hospitals in Europe and the United States. The best performance achieved was a 61% Dice score, and the best classification performance was about 80% balanced accuracy, with a demonstrated ability to generalize across hospitals. In addition, the segmentation performance of the best models was on par with human expert raters. The predicted segmentations can be used to accurately classify the patients into those with residual tumor, and those with gross total resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ragnhild Holden Helland
- Department of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, 7465, Trondheim, Norway.
- Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway.
| | - Alexandros Ferles
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Brain Tumor Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - André Pedersen
- Department of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, 7465, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Ivar Kommers
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Brain Tumor Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hilko Ardon
- Department of Neurosurgery, Twee Steden Hospital, 5042 AD, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - Frederik Barkhof
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Institutes of Neurology and Healthcare Engineering, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Lorenzo Bello
- Neurosurgical Oncology Unit, Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Università Degli Studi di Milano, 20122, Milan, Italy
| | - Mitchel S Berger
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA
| | - Tora Dunås
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | | | - Julia Furtner
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University Vienna, 1090, Vienna, Austria
- Research Center for Medical Image Analysis and Artificial Intelligence (MIAAI), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Danube Private University, 3500, Krems, Austria
| | - Shawn Hervey-Jumper
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA
| | - Albert J S Idema
- Department of Neurosurgery, Northwest Clinics, 1815 JD, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - Barbara Kiesel
- Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University Vienna, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Rishi Nandoe Tewari
- Department of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, 2512 VA, The Hague, The Netherlands
| | - Emmanuel Mandonnet
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Hôpital Lariboisière, 75010, Paris, France
| | - Domenique M J Müller
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Brain Tumor Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pierre A Robe
- Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marco Rossi
- Department of Medical Biotechnology and Translational Medicine, Università Degli Studi di Milano, 20122, Milan, Italy
| | - Lisa M Sagberg
- Department of Neurosurgery, St. Olavs hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, 7030, Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway
| | | | - Tom Aalders
- Department of Neurosurgery, Isala, 8025 AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands
| | - Michiel Wagemakers
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Georg Widhalm
- Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University Vienna, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Marnix G Witte
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Aeilko H Zwinderman
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paulina L Majewska
- Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Asgeir S Jakola
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Neurosurgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Ole Solheim
- Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Philip C De Witt Hamer
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Brain Tumor Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ingerid Reinertsen
- Department of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, 7465, Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Roelant S Eijgelaar
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Brain Tumor Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - David Bouget
- Department of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, 7465, Trondheim, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bianconi A, Rossi LF, Bonada M, Zeppa P, Nico E, De Marco R, Lacroce P, Cofano F, Bruno F, Morana G, Melcarne A, Ruda R, Mainardi L, Fiaschi P, Garbossa D, Morra L. Deep learning-based algorithm for postoperative glioblastoma MRI segmentation: a promising new tool for tumor burden assessment. Brain Inform 2023; 10:26. [PMID: 37801128 PMCID: PMC10558414 DOI: 10.1186/s40708-023-00207-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/16/2023] [Indexed: 10/07/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Clinical and surgical decisions for glioblastoma patients depend on a tumor imaging-based evaluation. Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be applied to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment to support clinical practice, surgery planning and prognostic predictions. In a real-world context, the current obstacles for AI are low-quality imaging and postoperative reliability. The aim of this study is to train an automatic algorithm for glioblastoma segmentation on a clinical MRI dataset and to obtain reliable results both pre- and post-operatively. METHODS The dataset used for this study comprises 237 (71 preoperative and 166 postoperative) MRIs from 71 patients affected by a histologically confirmed Grade IV Glioma. The implemented U-Net architecture was trained by transfer learning to perform the segmentation task on postoperative MRIs. The training was carried out first on BraTS2021 dataset for preoperative segmentation. Performance is evaluated using DICE score (DS) and Hausdorff 95% (H95). RESULTS In preoperative scenario, overall DS is 91.09 (± 0.60) and H95 is 8.35 (± 1.12), considering tumor core, enhancing tumor and whole tumor (ET and edema). In postoperative context, overall DS is 72.31 (± 2.88) and H95 is 23.43 (± 7.24), considering resection cavity (RC), gross tumor volume (GTV) and whole tumor (WT). Remarkably, the RC segmentation obtained a mean DS of 63.52 (± 8.90) in postoperative MRIs. CONCLUSIONS The performances achieved by the algorithm are consistent with previous literature for both pre-operative and post-operative glioblastoma's MRI evaluation. Through the proposed algorithm, it is possible to reduce the impact of low-quality images and missing sequences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Bianconi
- Neurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy.
| | | | - Marta Bonada
- Neurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy
| | - Pietro Zeppa
- Neurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy
| | - Elsa Nico
- Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Raffaele De Marco
- Neurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy
| | | | - Fabio Cofano
- Neurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy
| | - Francesco Bruno
- Neurooncology, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Giovanni Morana
- Neuroradiology, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Antonio Melcarne
- Neurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy
| | - Roberta Ruda
- Neurooncology, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Luca Mainardi
- Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Pietro Fiaschi
- IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico S. Martino, Genoa, Italy
- Dipartimento di Neuroscienze, Riabilitazione, Oftalmologia, Genetica e Scienze Materno-Infantili, Univeristy of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Diego Garbossa
- Neurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy
| | - Lia Morra
- Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Trivedi AG, Ramesh KK, Huang V, Mellon EA, Barker PB, Kleinberg LR, Weinberg BD, Shu HKG, Shim H. Spectroscopic MRI-Based Biomarkers Predict Survival for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma in a Clinical Trial. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:3524. [PMID: 37444634 PMCID: PMC10340675 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15133524] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2023] [Revised: 06/22/2023] [Accepted: 07/05/2023] [Indexed: 07/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Despite aggressive treatment, glioblastoma has a poor prognosis due to its infiltrative nature. Spectroscopic MRI-measured brain metabolites, particularly the choline to N-acetylaspartate ratio (Cho/NAA), better characterizes the extent of tumor infiltration. In a previous pilot trial (NCT03137888), brain regions with Cho/NAA ≥ 2x normal were treated with high-dose radiation for newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. This report is a secondary analysis of that trial where spectroscopic MRI-based biomarkers are evaluated for how they correlate with progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS). Subgroups were created within the cohort based on pre-radiation treatment (pre-RT) median cutoff volumes of residual enhancement (2.1 cc) and metabolically abnormal volumes used for treatment (19.2 cc). We generated Kaplan-Meier PFS/OS curves and compared these curves via the log-rank test between subgroups. For the subgroups stratified by metabolic abnormality, statistically significant differences were observed for PFS (p = 0.019) and OS (p = 0.020). Stratification by residual enhancement did not lead to observable differences in the OS (p = 0.373) or PFS (p = 0.286) curves. This retrospective analysis shows that patients with lower post-surgical Cho/NAA volumes had significantly superior survival outcomes, while residual enhancement, which guides high-dose radiation in standard treatment, had little significance in PFS/OS. This suggests that the infiltrating, non-enhancing component of glioblastoma is an important factor in patient outcomes and should be treated accordingly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anuradha G. Trivedi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
| | - Karthik K. Ramesh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
| | - Vicki Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
| | - Eric A. Mellon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL 45056, USA
| | - Peter B. Barker
- Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
| | - Lawrence R. Kleinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
| | - Brent D. Weinberg
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
| | - Hui-Kuo G. Shu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
| | - Hyunsuk Shim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Holtzman Gazit M, Faran R, Stepovoy K, Peles O, Shamir RR. Post-operative glioblastoma multiforme segmentation with uncertainty estimation. Front Hum Neurosci 2022; 16:932441. [PMID: 36405078 PMCID: PMC9669429 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.932441] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2022] [Accepted: 09/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
Segmentation of post-operative glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is essential for the planning of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) treatment and other clinical applications. Recent methods developed for pre-operative GBM segmentation perform poorly on post-operative GBM MRI scans. In this paper we present a method for the segmentation of GBM in post-operative patients. Our method incorporates an ensemble of segmentation networks and the Kullback–Leibler divergence agreement score in the objective function to estimate the prediction label uncertainty and cope with noisy labels and inter-observer variability. Moreover, our method integrates the surgery type and computes non-tumorous tissue delineation to automatically segment the tumor. We trained and validated our method on a dataset of 340 enhanced T1 MRI scans of patients that were treated with TTFields (270 scans for train and 70 scans for test). For validation, we developed a tool that uses the uncertainty map along with the segmentation result. Our tool allows visualization and fast editing of the tissues to improve the results dependent on user preference. Three physicians reviewed and graded our segmentation and editing tool on 12 different MRI scans. The validation set average (SD) Dice scores were 0.81 (0.11), 0.71 (0.24), 0.64 (0.25), and 0.68 (0.19) for whole-tumor, resection, necrotic-core, and enhancing-tissue, respectively. The physicians rated 72% of the segmented GBMs acceptable for treatment planning or better. Another 22% can be edited manually in a reasonable time to achieve a clinically acceptable result. According to these results, the proposed method for GBM segmentation can be integrated into TTFields treatment planning software in order to shorten the planning process. To conclude, we have extended a state-of-the-art pre-operative GBM segmentation method with surgery-type, anatomical information, and uncertainty visualization to facilitate a clinically viable segmentation of post-operative GBM for TTFields treatment planning.
Collapse
|
8
|
Makrogiannis S, Okorie A, Di Iorio A, Bandinelli S, Ferrucci L. Multi-atlas segmentation and quantification of muscle, bone and subcutaneous adipose tissue in the lower leg using peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Front Physiol 2022; 13:951368. [PMID: 36311235 PMCID: PMC9614313 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2022.951368] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2022] [Accepted: 09/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Accurate and reproducible tissue identification is essential for understanding structural and functional changes that may occur naturally with aging, or because of a chronic disease, or in response to intervention therapies. Peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) is regularly employed for body composition studies, especially for the structural and material properties of the bone. Furthermore, pQCT acquisition requires low radiation dose and the scanner is compact and portable. However, pQCT scans have limited spatial resolution and moderate SNR. pQCT image quality is frequently degraded by involuntary subject movement during image acquisition. These limitations may often compromise the accuracy of tissue quantification, and emphasize the need for automated and robust quantification methods. We propose a tissue identification and quantification methodology that addresses image quality limitations and artifacts, with increased interest in subject movement. We introduce a multi-atlas image segmentation (MAIS) framework for semantic segmentation of hard and soft tissues in pQCT scans at multiple levels of the lower leg. We describe the stages of statistical atlas generation, deformable registration and multi-tissue classifier fusion. We evaluated the performance of our methodology using multiple deformable registration approaches against reference tissue masks. We also evaluated the performance of conventional model-based segmentation against the same reference data to facilitate comparisons. We studied the effect of subject movement on tissue segmentation quality. We also applied the top performing method to a larger out-of-sample dataset and report the quantification results. The results show that multi-atlas image segmentation with diffeomorphic deformation and probabilistic label fusion produces very good quality over all tissues, even for scans with significant quality degradation. The application of our technique to the larger dataset reveals trends of age-related body composition changes that are consistent with the literature. Because of its robustness to subject motion artifacts, our MAIS methodology enables analysis of larger number of scans than conventional state-of-the-art methods. Automated analysis of both soft and hard tissues in pQCT is another contribution of this work.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sokratis Makrogiannis
- Math Imaging and Visual Computing Lab, Division of Physics, Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Delaware State University, Dover, DE, United States
- *Correspondence: Sokratis Makrogiannis,
| | - Azubuike Okorie
- Math Imaging and Visual Computing Lab, Division of Physics, Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Delaware State University, Dover, DE, United States
| | - Angelo Di Iorio
- Antalgic Mini-invasive and Rehab-Outpatients Unit, Department of Innovative Technologies in Medicine & Dentistry, University “G.d’Annunzio”, Chieti-Pescara, Italy
| | | | - Luigi Ferrucci
- National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, MD, United States
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Popat M, Patel S. Research perspective and review towards brain tumour segmentation and classification using different image modalities. COMPUTER METHODS IN BIOMECHANICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING: IMAGING & VISUALIZATION 2022. [DOI: 10.1080/21681163.2022.2124546] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Mayuri Popat
- U & P.U. Patel Department of Computer Engineering, Chandubhai S Patel Institute of Technology (CSPIT), Charotar University of Science and Technology (CHARUSAT), Gujarat, India
| | - Sanskruti Patel
- Smt. Chandaben Mohanbhai Patel Institute of Computer Applications (CMPICA), Charotar University of Science and Technology (CHARUSAT), Gujarat, India
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Ruiz-Garcia H, Middlebrooks EH, Trifiletti DM, Chaichana KL, Quinones-Hinojosa A, Sheehan JP. The Extent of Resection in Gliomas-Evidence-Based Recommendations on Methodological Aspects of Research Design. World Neurosurg 2022; 161:382-395.e3. [PMID: 35505558 DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.08.140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2021] [Accepted: 08/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Modern neurosurgery has established maximal safe resection as a cornerstone in the management of diffuse gliomas. Evaluation of the extent of resection (EOR), and its association with certain outcomes or interventions, heavily depends on an adequate methodology to draw strong conclusions. We aim to identify weaknesses and limitations that may threaten the internal validity and generalizability of studies involving the EOR in patients with glioma and to suggest methodological recommendations that may help mitigate these threats. METHODS A systematic search was performed by querying PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus since inception to April 30, 2021 using PICOS/PRISMA guidelines. Articles were then screened to identify high-impact studies evaluating the EOR in patients diagnosed with diffuse gliomas in accordance with predefined criteria. We identify common weakness and limitations during the evaluation of the EOR in the selected studies and then delineate potential methodological recommendations for future endeavors dealing with the EOR. RESULTS We identified 31 high-impact studies and found several research design issues including inconsistencies regarding EOR terminology, measurement, data collection, analysis, and reporting. Although some of these issues were related to now outdated reporting standards, many were still present in recent publications and deserve attention in contemporary and future research. CONCLUSIONS There is a current need to focus more attention to the methodological aspects of glioma research. Methodological inconsistencies may introduce weaknesses into the internal validity of the studies and hamper comparative analysis of cohorts from different institutions. We hope our recommendations will eventually help develop stronger methodological designs in future research endeavors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Henry Ruiz-Garcia
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA; Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Erik H Middlebrooks
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA; Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Daniel M Trifiletti
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | | | | | - Jason P Sheehan
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Kommers I, Bouget D, Pedersen A, Eijgelaar RS, Ardon H, Barkhof F, Bello L, Berger MS, Conti Nibali M, Furtner J, Fyllingen EH, Hervey-Jumper S, Idema AJS, Kiesel B, Kloet A, Mandonnet E, Müller DMJ, Robe PA, Rossi M, Sagberg LM, Sciortino T, van den Brink WA, Wagemakers M, Widhalm G, Witte MG, Zwinderman AH, Reinertsen I, Solheim O, De Witt Hamer PC. Glioblastoma Surgery Imaging-Reporting and Data System: Standardized Reporting of Tumor Volume, Location, and Resectability Based on Automated Segmentations. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:2854. [PMID: 34201021 PMCID: PMC8229389 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13122854] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2021] [Revised: 05/28/2021] [Accepted: 06/02/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Treatment decisions for patients with presumed glioblastoma are based on tumor characteristics available from a preoperative MR scan. Tumor characteristics, including volume, location, and resectability, are often estimated or manually delineated. This process is time consuming and subjective. Hence, comparison across cohorts, trials, or registries are subject to assessment bias. In this study, we propose a standardized Glioblastoma Surgery Imaging Reporting and Data System (GSI-RADS) based on an automated method of tumor segmentation that provides standard reports on tumor features that are potentially relevant for glioblastoma surgery. As clinical validation, we determine the agreement in extracted tumor features between the automated method and the current standard of manual segmentations from routine clinical MR scans before treatment. In an observational consecutive cohort of 1596 adult patients with a first time surgery of a glioblastoma from 13 institutions, we segmented gadolinium-enhanced tumor parts both by a human rater and by an automated algorithm. Tumor features were extracted from segmentations of both methods and compared to assess differences, concordance, and equivalence. The laterality, contralateral infiltration, and the laterality indices were in excellent agreement. The native and normalized tumor volumes had excellent agreement, consistency, and equivalence. Multifocality, but not the number of foci, had good agreement and equivalence. The location profiles of cortical and subcortical structures were in excellent agreement. The expected residual tumor volumes and resectability indices had excellent agreement, consistency, and equivalence. Tumor probability maps were in good agreement. In conclusion, automated segmentations are in excellent agreement with manual segmentations and practically equivalent regarding tumor features that are potentially relevant for neurosurgical purposes. Standard GSI-RADS reports can be generated by open access software.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ivar Kommers
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (I.K.); (R.S.E.); (D.M.J.M.)
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Brain Tumor Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - David Bouget
- Department of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway; (D.B.); (A.P.); (I.R.)
| | - André Pedersen
- Department of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway; (D.B.); (A.P.); (I.R.)
| | - Roelant S. Eijgelaar
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (I.K.); (R.S.E.); (D.M.J.M.)
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Brain Tumor Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hilko Ardon
- Department of Neurosurgery, Twee Steden Hospital, 5042 AD Tilburg, The Netherlands;
| | - Frederik Barkhof
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
- Institutes of Neurology and Healthcare Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Lorenzo Bello
- Neurosurgical Oncology Unit, Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Università Degli Studi di Milano, 20122 Milano, Italy; (L.B.); (M.C.N.); (M.R.); (T.S.)
| | - Mitchel S. Berger
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA; (M.S.B.); (S.H.-J.)
| | - Marco Conti Nibali
- Neurosurgical Oncology Unit, Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Università Degli Studi di Milano, 20122 Milano, Italy; (L.B.); (M.C.N.); (M.R.); (T.S.)
| | - Julia Furtner
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University Vienna, 1090 Wien, Austria;
| | - Even H. Fyllingen
- Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway;
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, St. Olav’s Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, NO-7030 Trondheim, Norway
| | - Shawn Hervey-Jumper
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA; (M.S.B.); (S.H.-J.)
| | - Albert J. S. Idema
- Department of Neurosurgery, Northwest Clinics, 1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands;
| | - Barbara Kiesel
- Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University Vienna, 1090 Wien, Austria; (B.K.); (G.W.)
| | - Alfred Kloet
- Department of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, 2512 VA The Hague, The Netherlands;
| | - Emmanuel Mandonnet
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Hôpital Lariboisière, 75010 Paris, France;
| | - Domenique M. J. Müller
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (I.K.); (R.S.E.); (D.M.J.M.)
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Brain Tumor Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pierre A. Robe
- Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands;
| | - Marco Rossi
- Neurosurgical Oncology Unit, Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Università Degli Studi di Milano, 20122 Milano, Italy; (L.B.); (M.C.N.); (M.R.); (T.S.)
| | - Lisa M. Sagberg
- Department of Neurosurgery, St. Olav’s Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, NO-7030 Trondheim, Norway;
| | - Tommaso Sciortino
- Neurosurgical Oncology Unit, Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Università Degli Studi di Milano, 20122 Milano, Italy; (L.B.); (M.C.N.); (M.R.); (T.S.)
| | | | - Michiel Wagemakers
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands;
| | - Georg Widhalm
- Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University Vienna, 1090 Wien, Austria; (B.K.); (G.W.)
| | - Marnix G. Witte
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Aeilko H. Zwinderman
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Ingerid Reinertsen
- Department of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway; (D.B.); (A.P.); (I.R.)
- Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway;
| | - Ole Solheim
- Department of Neurosurgery, St. Olav’s Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, NO-7030 Trondheim, Norway;
- Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
| | - Philip C. De Witt Hamer
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (I.K.); (R.S.E.); (D.M.J.M.)
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Brain Tumor Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Gurbani S, Weinberg B, Cooper L, Mellon E, Schreibmann E, Sheriff S, Maudsley A, Goryawala M, Shu HK, Shim H. The Brain Imaging Collaboration Suite (BrICS): A Cloud Platform for Integrating Whole-Brain Spectroscopic MRI into the Radiation Therapy Planning Workflow. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2020; 5:184-191. [PMID: 30854456 PMCID: PMC6403040 DOI: 10.18383/j.tom.2018.00028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
Glioblastoma has poor prognosis with inevitable local recurrence despite aggressive treatment with surgery and chemoradiation. Radiation therapy (RT) is typically guided by contrast-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for defining the high-dose target and T2-weighted fluid-attenuation inversion recovery MRI for defining the moderate-dose target. There is an urgent need for improved imaging methods to better delineate tumors for focal RT. Spectroscopic MRI (sMRI) is a quantitative imaging technique that enables whole-brain analysis of endogenous metabolite levels, such as the ratio of choline-to-N-acetylaspartate. Previous work has shown that choline-to-N-acetylaspartate ratio accurately identifies tissue with high tumor burden beyond what is seen on standard imaging and can predict regions of metabolic abnormality that are at high risk for recurrence. To facilitate efficient clinical implementation of sMRI for RT planning, we developed the Brain Imaging Collaboration Suite (BrICS; https://brainimaging.emory.edu/brics-demo), a cloud platform that integrates sMRI with standard imaging and enables team members from multiple departments and institutions to work together in delineating RT targets. BrICS is being used in a multisite pilot study to assess feasibility and safety of dose-escalated RT based on metabolic abnormalities in patients with glioblastoma (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03137888). The workflow of analyzing sMRI volumes and preparing RT plans is described. The pipeline achieved rapid turnaround time by enabling team members to perform their delegated tasks independently in BrICS when their clinical schedules allowed. To date, 18 patients have been treated using targets created in BrICS and no severe toxicities have been observed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saumya Gurbani
- Departments of Radiation Oncology.,Biomedical Engineering
| | | | - Lee Cooper
- Biomedical Engineering.,Biomedical Informatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | | | | | - Sulaiman Sheriff
- Radiology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
| | - Andrew Maudsley
- Radiology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
| | | | | | - Hyunsuk Shim
- Departments of Radiation Oncology.,Biomedical Engineering.,Radiology and Imaging Sciences, and
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Lee JYK, Cho SS, Stummer W, Tanyi JL, Vahrmeijer AL, Rosenthal E, Smith B, Henderson E, Roberts DW, Lee A, Hadjipanayis CG, Bruce JN, Newman JG, Singhal S. Review of clinical trials in intraoperative molecular imaging during cancer surgery. JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL OPTICS 2019; 24:1-8. [PMID: 31808327 PMCID: PMC7005471 DOI: 10.1117/1.jbo.24.12.120901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2019] [Accepted: 11/15/2019] [Indexed: 05/14/2023]
Abstract
Most solid cancers are treated by surgical resections to reduce the burden of disease. Surgeons often face the challenge of detecting small areas of residual neoplasm after resection or finding small primary tumors for the initial resection. Intraoperative molecular imaging (IMI) is an emerging technology with the potential to dramatically improve cancer surgery operations by allowing surgeons to better visualize areas of neoplasm using fluorescence imaging. Over the last two years, two molecular optical contrast agents received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval, and several more drugs are now on the horizon. Thus a conference was organized at the University of Pennsylvania to bring together oncologic surgeons from different specialties to discuss the current clinical status of IMI trials with a specific focus on phase 2 and phase 3 studies. In addition, phase 1 and experimental trials were also discussed briefly, to highlight other novel techniques. Our review summarizes the discussions from the conference and delves into the types of cancers discussed, different contrast agents in human trials, and the clinical value being studied.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John Y. K. Lee
- University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
- Address all correspondence to John Y. K. Lee, E-mail:
| | - Steve S. Cho
- University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| | | | - Janos L. Tanyi
- University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| | | | - Eben Rosenthal
- Stanford University, School of Medicine, California, United States
| | - Barbara Smith
- Harvard University, School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Eric Henderson
- Dartmouth College, School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States
- Dartmouth College, School of Engineering, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States
| | - David W. Roberts
- Dartmouth College, School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States
- Dartmouth College, School of Engineering, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States
| | - Amy Lee
- University of Washington, School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, United States
| | | | - Jeffrey N. Bruce
- Columbia University, School of Medicine, New York, United States
| | - Jason G. Newman
- University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| | - Sunil Singhal
- University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Visser M, Müller DMJ, van Duijn RJM, Smits M, Verburg N, Hendriks EJ, Nabuurs RJA, Bot JCJ, Eijgelaar RS, Witte M, van Herk MB, Barkhof F, de Witt Hamer PC, de Munck JC. Inter-rater agreement in glioma segmentations on longitudinal MRI. NEUROIMAGE-CLINICAL 2019; 22:101727. [PMID: 30825711 PMCID: PMC6396436 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101727] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2018] [Revised: 02/06/2019] [Accepted: 02/19/2019] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Background Tumor segmentation of glioma on MRI is a technique to monitor, quantify and report disease progression. Manual MRI segmentation is the gold standard but very labor intensive. At present the quality of this gold standard is not known for different stages of the disease, and prior work has mainly focused on treatment-naive glioblastoma. In this paper we studied the inter-rater agreement of manual MRI segmentation of glioblastoma and WHO grade II-III glioma for novices and experts at three stages of disease. We also studied the impact of inter-observer variation on extent of resection and growth rate. Methods In 20 patients with WHO grade IV glioblastoma and 20 patients with WHO grade II-III glioma (defined as non-glioblastoma) both the enhancing and non-enhancing tumor elements were segmented on MRI, using specialized software, by four novices and four experts before surgery, after surgery and at time of tumor progression. We used the generalized conformity index (GCI) and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of tumor volume as main outcome measures for inter-rater agreement. Results For glioblastoma, segmentations by experts and novices were comparable. The inter-rater agreement of enhancing tumor elements was excellent before surgery (GCI 0.79, ICC 0.99) poor after surgery (GCI 0.32, ICC 0.92), and good at progression (GCI 0.65, ICC 0.91). For non-glioblastoma, the inter-rater agreement was generally higher between experts than between novices. The inter-rater agreement was excellent between experts before surgery (GCI 0.77, ICC 0.92), was reasonable after surgery (GCI 0.48, ICC 0.84), and good at progression (GCI 0.60, ICC 0.80). The inter-rater agreement was good between novices before surgery (GCI 0.66, ICC 0.73), was poor after surgery (GCI 0.33, ICC 0.55), and poor at progression (GCI 0.36, ICC 0.73). Further analysis showed that the lower inter-rater agreement of segmentation on postoperative MRI could only partly be explained by the smaller volumes and fragmentation of residual tumor. The median interquartile range of extent of resection between raters was 8.3% and of growth rate was 0.22 mm/year. Conclusion Manual tumor segmentations on MRI have reasonable agreement for use in spatial and volumetric analysis. Agreement in spatial overlap is of concern with segmentation after surgery for glioblastoma and with segmentation of non-glioblastoma by non-experts. Inter-rater agreement for longitudinal glioma segmentation was determined. Agreement between 4 experts was higher than between 4 novices. Three time-points of glioblastoma (WHO IV) and diffuse glioma (WHO II-III) are studied. Impact on extent of resection and growth rate measurements was determined.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Visser
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - D M J Müller
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Brain Tumor Center, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - R J M van Duijn
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Smits
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - N Verburg
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Brain Tumor Center, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - E J Hendriks
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - R J A Nabuurs
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Brain Tumor Center, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J C J Bot
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - R S Eijgelaar
- Department of Radiotherapy, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1006 BE Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Witte
- Department of Radiotherapy, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1006 BE Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M B van Herk
- Institute of Cancer Sciences, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
| | - F Barkhof
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Institutes of Neurology and Healthcare Engineering, University College London, Gower St, Bloomsbury, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
| | - P C de Witt Hamer
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J C de Munck
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Hadjipanayis CG, Stummer W. 5-ALA and FDA approval for glioma surgery. J Neurooncol 2019; 141:479-486. [PMID: 30644008 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-019-03098-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 232] [Impact Index Per Article: 38.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2018] [Accepted: 01/09/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA; Gleolan®; photonamic GmbH and Co. KG) for use as an intraoperative optical imaging agent in patients with suspected high-grade gliomas (HGGs) in 2017. This was the first ever optical imaging agent approved as an adjunct for the visualization of malignant tissue during surgery for brain tumors. The approval occurred a decade after European approval and a multicenter, phase III randomized trial which confirmed that surgeons using 5-ALA fluorescence-guided surgery as a surgical adjunct could achieve more complete resections of tumors in HGG patients and better patient outcomes than with conventional microsurgery. Much of the delay in the US FDA approval of 5-ALA stemmed from its conceptualization as a therapeutic and not as an intraoperative imaging tool. We chronicle the challenges encountered during the US FDA approval process to highlight a new standard for approval of intraoperative optical imaging agents in brain tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constantinos G Hadjipanayis
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
- Department of Neurosurgery, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Walter Stummer
- Department of Neurosurgery, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Press RH, Shu HKG, Shim H, Mountz JM, Kurland BF, Wahl RL, Jones EF, Hylton NM, Gerstner ER, Nordstrom RJ, Henderson L, Kurdziel KA, Vikram B, Jacobs MA, Holdhoff M, Taylor E, Jaffray DA, Schwartz LH, Mankoff DA, Kinahan PE, Linden HM, Lambin P, Dilling TJ, Rubin DL, Hadjiiski L, Buatti JM. The Use of Quantitative Imaging in Radiation Oncology: A Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) Perspective. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 102:1219-1235. [PMID: 29966725 PMCID: PMC6348006 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.06.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/01/2018] [Revised: 05/25/2018] [Accepted: 06/14/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Modern radiation therapy is delivered with great precision, in part by relying on high-resolution multidimensional anatomic imaging to define targets in space and time. The development of quantitative imaging (QI) modalities capable of monitoring biologic parameters could provide deeper insight into tumor biology and facilitate more personalized clinical decision-making. The Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) was established by the National Cancer Institute to advance and validate these QI modalities in the context of oncology clinical trials. In particular, the QIN has significant interest in the application of QI to widen the therapeutic window of radiation therapy. QI modalities have great promise in radiation oncology and will help address significant clinical needs, including finer prognostication, more specific target delineation, reduction of normal tissue toxicity, identification of radioresistant disease, and clearer interpretation of treatment response. Patient-specific QI is being incorporated into radiation treatment design in ways such as dose escalation and adaptive replanning, with the intent of improving outcomes while lessening treatment morbidities. This review discusses the current vision of the QIN, current areas of investigation, and how the QIN hopes to enhance the integration of QI into the practice of radiation oncology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert H. Press
- Dept. of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Hui-Kuo G. Shu
- Dept. of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Hyunsuk Shim
- Dept. of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - James M. Mountz
- Dept. of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
| | | | | | - Ella F. Jones
- Dept. of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - Nola M. Hylton
- Dept. of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - Elizabeth R. Gerstner
- Dept. of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | | | - Lori Henderson
- Cancer Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | | | - Bhadrasain Vikram
- Radiation Research Program/Division of Cancer Treatment & Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Michael A. Jacobs
- Dept. of Radiology and Radiological Science, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD
| | - Matthias Holdhoff
- Brain Cancer Program, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD
| | - Edward Taylor
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - David A. Jaffray
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | | | - David A. Mankoff
- Dept. of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | | | - Philippe Lambin
- Dept. of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Thomas J. Dilling
- Dept. of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL
| | | | | | - John M. Buatti
- Dept. of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Rank-Two NMF Clustering for Glioblastoma Characterization. JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE ENGINEERING 2018; 2018:1048164. [PMID: 30425818 PMCID: PMC6218733 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1048164] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2018] [Accepted: 09/26/2018] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
This study investigates a novel classification method for 3D multimodal MRI glioblastomas tumor characterization. We formulate our segmentation problem as a linear mixture model (LMM). Thus, we provide a nonnegative matrix M from every MRI slice in every segmentation process' step. This matrix will be used as an input for the first segmentation process to extract the edema region from T2 and FLAIR modalities. After that, in the rest of segmentation processes, we extract the edema region from T1c modality, generate the matrix M, and segment the necrosis, the enhanced tumor, and the nonenhanced tumor regions. In the segmentation process, we apply a rank-two NMF clustering. We have executed our tumor characterization method on BraTS 2015 challenge dataset. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations over the publicly training and testing dataset from the MICCAI 2015 multimodal brain segmentation challenge (BraTS 2015) attested that the proposed algorithm could yield a competitive performance for brain glioblastomas characterization (necrosis, tumor core, and edema) among several competing methods.
Collapse
|
18
|
Maudsley AA. Lesion segmentation for MR spectroscopic imaging using the convolution difference method. Magn Reson Med 2018; 81:1499-1510. [PMID: 30303564 DOI: 10.1002/mrm.27500] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2018] [Revised: 07/18/2018] [Accepted: 08/01/2018] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Delineation of lesion boundaries from volumetric MRSI metabolite ratio maps using a method that accounts for the spatial response function of the acquisition and variable spectral quality and is robust to signal heterogeneity within the lesion. METHODS A novel method for lesion segmentation, termed convolution difference, has been developed that is robust to signal heterogeneity within the lesion and to differences in the spatial response function. Procedures are described for processing metabolite ratio maps and to exclude regions of inadequate spectral quality. This method was evaluated using computer simulations, and the results were compared with an iterative thresholding technique that determines an optimal amplitude threshold, and with the use of a fixed amplitude threshold. These methods were evaluated for segmentation of volumetric MRSI studies of gliomas using maps of the choline to N-acetylaspartate ratio, and a qualitative comparison of lesion volumes carried out. RESULTS Simulation studies indicated improved performance for the convolution difference method when applied to ratio maps. Variations in tumor volume were observed for the in vivo studies between the convolution difference and the iterative thresholding methods; however, visual analysis indicates that both showed improved accuracy in comparison to using a fixed amplitude threshold. CONCLUSION This study reinforces previous reports indicating that the use of fixed threshold values for segmentation of maps with broad spatial response functions can result in errors in lesion volume definition. A novel segmentation method, termed the convolution difference, has been introduced and demonstrated to be robust for segmentation of volumetric MRSI metabolite data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew A Maudsley
- Department of Radiology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Cordova JS, Gurbani SS, Holder CA, Olson JJ, Schreibmann E, Shi R, Guo Y, Shu HKG, Shim H, Hadjipanayis CG. Semi-Automated Volumetric and Morphological Assessment of Glioblastoma Resection with Fluorescence-Guided Surgery. Mol Imaging Biol 2017; 18:454-62. [PMID: 26463215 DOI: 10.1007/s11307-015-0900-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Glioblastoma (GBM) neurosurgical resection relies on contrast-enhanced MRI-based neuronavigation. However, it is well-known that infiltrating tumor extends beyond contrast enhancement. Fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) using 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) was evaluated to improve extent of resection (EOR) of GBMs. Preoperative morphological tumor metrics were also assessed. PROCEDURES Thirty patients from a phase II trial evaluating 5-ALA FGS in newly diagnosed GBM were assessed. Tumors were segmented preoperatively to assess morphological features as well as postoperatively to evaluate EOR and residual tumor volume (RTV). RESULTS Median EOR and RTV were 94.3 % and 0.821 cm(3), respectively. Preoperative surface area to volume ratio and RTV were significantly associated with overall survival, even when controlling for the known survival confounders. CONCLUSIONS This study supports claims that 5-ALA FGS is helpful at decreasing tumor burden and prolonging survival in GBM. Moreover, morphological indices are shown to impact both resection and patient survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Scott Cordova
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1701 Uppergate Drive, C5018, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Saumya S Gurbani
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1701 Uppergate Drive, C5018, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Chad A Holder
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1701 Uppergate Drive, C5018, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Jeffrey J Olson
- Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, 1701 Uppergate Drive, C5018, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Eduard Schreibmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1701 Uppergate Drive, C5018, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Ran Shi
- Department of Biostatistics, Emory University School of Public Health, 1701 Uppergate Drive, C5018, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Ying Guo
- Department of Biostatistics, Emory University School of Public Health, 1701 Uppergate Drive, C5018, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Hui-Kuo G Shu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1701 Uppergate Drive, C5018, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.,Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Hyunsuk Shim
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1701 Uppergate Drive, C5018, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. .,Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
| | - Costas G Hadjipanayis
- Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, 1701 Uppergate Drive, C5018, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. .,Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. .,Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Tisch Cancer Institute, 10 Union Square, 5th Floor, Suite 5E, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Mooney MA, Hardesty DA, Sheehy JP, Bird CR, Chapple K, White WL, Little AS. Rater Reliability of the Hardy Classification for Pituitary Adenomas in the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Era. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2017; 78:413-418. [PMID: 28875120 DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1603649] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2017] [Accepted: 04/30/2017] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Objectives The Hardy classification is used to classify pituitary tumors for clinical and research purposes. The scale was developed using lateral skull radiographs and encephalograms, and its reliability has not been evaluated in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) era. Design Fifty preoperative MRI scans of biopsy-proven pituitary adenomas using the sellar invasion and suprasellar extension components of the Hardy scale were reviewed. Setting This study was a cohort study set at a single institution. Participants There were six independent raters. Main Outcome Measures The main outcome measures of this study were interrater reliability, intrarater reliability, and percent agreement. Results Overall interrater reliability of both Hardy subscales on MRI was strong. However, reliability of the intermediate scores was weak, and percent agreement among raters was poor (12-16%) using the full scales. Dichotomizing the scale into clinically useful groups maintained strong interrater reliability for the sellar invasion scale and increased the percent agreement for both scales. Conclusion This study raises important questions about the reliability of the original Hardy classification. Editing the measure to a clinically relevant dichotomous scale simplifies the rating process and may be useful for preoperative tumor characterization in the MRI era. Future research studies should use the dichotomized Hardy scale (sellar invasion Grades 0-III versus Grade IV, suprasellar extension Types 0-C versus Type D).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael A Mooney
- Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
| | - Douglas A Hardesty
- Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
| | - John P Sheehy
- Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
| | - C Roger Bird
- Departments of Neuroradiology, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
| | - Kristina Chapple
- Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
| | - William L White
- Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
| | - Andrew S Little
- Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Mooney MA, Hardesty DA, Sheehy JP, Bird R, Chapple K, White WL, Little AS. Interrater and intrarater reliability of the Knosp scale for pituitary adenoma grading. J Neurosurg 2017; 126:1714-1719. [DOI: 10.3171/2016.3.jns153044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVEThe goal of this study was to determine the interrater and intrarater reliability of the Knosp grading scale for predicting pituitary adenoma cavernous sinus (CS) involvement.METHODSSix independent raters (3 neurosurgery residents, 2 pituitary surgeons, and 1 neuroradiologist) participated in the study. Each rater scored 50 unique pituitary MRI scans (with contrast) of biopsy-proven pituitary adenoma. Reliabilities for the full scale were determined 3 ways: 1) using all 50 scans, 2) using scans with midrange scores versus end scores, and 3) using a dichotomized scale that reflects common clinical practice. The performance of resident raters was compared with that of faculty raters to assess the influence of training level on reliability.RESULTSOverall, the interrater reliability of the Knosp scale was “strong” (0.73, 95% CI 0.56–0.84). However, the percent agreement for all 6 reviewers was only 10% (26% for faculty members, 30% for residents). The reliability of the middle scores (i.e., average rated Knosp Grades 1 and 2) was “very weak” (0.18, 95% CI −0.27 to 0.56) and the percent agreement for all reviewers was only 5%. When the scale was dichotomized into tumors unlikely to have intraoperative CS involvement (Grades 0, 1, and 2) and those likely to have CS involvement (Grades 3 and 4), the reliability was “strong” (0.60, 95% CI 0.39–0.75) and the percent agreement for all raters improved to 60%. There was no significant difference in reliability between residents and faculty (residents 0.72, 95% CI 0.55–0.83 vs faculty 0.73, 95% CI 0.56–0.84). Intrarater reliability was moderate to strong and increased with the level of experience.CONCLUSIONSAlthough these findings suggest that the Knosp grading scale has acceptable interrater reliability overall, it raises important questions about the “very weak” reliability of the scale's middle grades. By dichotomizing the scale into clinically useful groups, the authors were able to address the poor reliability and percent agreement of the intermediate grades and to isolate the most important grades for use in surgical decision making (Grades 3 and 4). Authors of future pituitary surgery studies should consider reporting Knosp grades as dichotomized results rather than as the full scale to optimize the reliability of the scale.
Collapse
|
22
|
Czarnek N, Clark K, Peters KB, Mazurowski MA. Algorithmic three-dimensional analysis of tumor shape in MRI improves prognosis of survival in glioblastoma: a multi-institutional study. J Neurooncol 2017; 132:55-62. [DOI: 10.1007/s11060-016-2359-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2016] [Accepted: 12/23/2016] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
|
23
|
Meier R, Porz N, Knecht U, Loosli T, Schucht P, Beck J, Slotboom J, Wiest R, Reyes M. Automatic estimation of extent of resection and residual tumor volume of patients with glioblastoma. J Neurosurg 2017; 127:798-806. [PMID: 28059651 DOI: 10.3171/2016.9.jns16146] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE In the treatment of glioblastoma, residual tumor burden is the only prognostic factor that can be actively influenced by therapy. Therefore, an accurate, reproducible, and objective measurement of residual tumor burden is necessary. This study aimed to evaluate the use of a fully automatic segmentation method-brain tumor image analysis (BraTumIA)-for estimating the extent of resection (EOR) and residual tumor volume (RTV) of contrast-enhancing tumor after surgery. METHODS The imaging data of 19 patients who underwent primary resection of histologically confirmed supratentorial glioblastoma were retrospectively reviewed. Contrast-enhancing tumors apparent on structural preoperative and immediate postoperative MR imaging in this patient cohort were segmented by 4 different raters and the automatic segmentation BraTumIA software. The manual and automatic results were quantitatively compared. RESULTS First, the interrater variabilities in the estimates of EOR and RTV were assessed for all human raters. Interrater agreement in terms of the coefficient of concordance (W) was higher for RTV (W = 0.812; p < 0.001) than for EOR (W = 0.775; p < 0.001). Second, the volumetric estimates of BraTumIA for all 19 patients were compared with the estimates of the human raters, which showed that for both EOR (W = 0.713; p < 0.001) and RTV (W = 0.693; p < 0.001) the estimates of BraTumIA were generally located close to or between the estimates of the human raters. No statistically significant differences were detected between the manual and automatic estimates. BraTumIA showed a tendency to overestimate contrast-enhancing tumors, leading to moderate agreement with expert raters with respect to the literature-based, survival-relevant threshold values for EOR. CONCLUSIONS BraTumIA can generate volumetric estimates of EOR and RTV, in a fully automatic fashion, which are comparable to the estimates of human experts. However, automated analysis showed a tendency to overestimate the volume of a contrast-enhancing tumor, whereas manual analysis is prone to subjectivity, thereby causing considerable interrater variability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raphael Meier
- Institute for Surgical Technology & Biomechanics, University of Bern
| | - Nicole Porz
- Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Inselspital and University of Bern; and.,Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Inselspital and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Urspeter Knecht
- Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Inselspital and University of Bern; and
| | - Tina Loosli
- Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Inselspital and University of Bern; and
| | - Philippe Schucht
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Inselspital and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Jürgen Beck
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Inselspital and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Johannes Slotboom
- Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Inselspital and University of Bern; and
| | - Roland Wiest
- Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Inselspital and University of Bern; and
| | - Mauricio Reyes
- Institute for Surgical Technology & Biomechanics, University of Bern
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
|
25
|
Clinical Evaluation of a Fully-automatic Segmentation Method for Longitudinal Brain Tumor Volumetry. Sci Rep 2016; 6:23376. [PMID: 27001047 PMCID: PMC4802217 DOI: 10.1038/srep23376] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2015] [Accepted: 03/04/2016] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Information about the size of a tumor and its temporal evolution is needed for diagnosis as well as treatment of brain tumor patients. The aim of the study was to investigate the potential of a fully-automatic segmentation method, called BraTumIA, for longitudinal brain tumor volumetry by comparing the automatically estimated volumes with ground truth data acquired via manual segmentation. Longitudinal Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging data of 14 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma encompassing 64 MR acquisitions, ranging from preoperative up to 12 month follow-up images, was analysed. Manual segmentation was performed by two human raters. Strong correlations (R = 0.83–0.96, p < 0.001) were observed between volumetric estimates of BraTumIA and of each of the human raters for the contrast-enhancing (CET) and non-enhancing T2-hyperintense tumor compartments (NCE-T2). A quantitative analysis of the inter-rater disagreement showed that the disagreement between BraTumIA and each of the human raters was comparable to the disagreement between the human raters. In summary, BraTumIA generated volumetric trend curves of contrast-enhancing and non-enhancing T2-hyperintense tumor compartments comparable to estimates of human raters. These findings suggest the potential of automated longitudinal tumor segmentation to substitute manual volumetric follow-up of contrast-enhancing and non-enhancing T2-hyperintense tumor compartments.
Collapse
|
26
|
Cordova JS, Shu HKG, Liang Z, Gurbani SS, Cooper LAD, Holder CA, Olson JJ, Kairdolf B, Schreibmann E, Neill SG, Hadjipanayis CG, Shim H. Whole-brain spectroscopic MRI biomarkers identify infiltrating margins in glioblastoma patients. Neuro Oncol 2016; 18:1180-9. [PMID: 26984746 DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/now036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 90] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2015] [Accepted: 02/08/2016] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The standard of care for glioblastoma (GBM) is maximal safe resection followed by radiation therapy with chemotherapy. Currently, contrast-enhanced MRI is used to define primary treatment volumes for surgery and radiation therapy. However, enhancement does not identify the tumor entirely, resulting in limited local control. Proton spectroscopic MRI (sMRI), a method reporting endogenous metabolism, may better define the tumor margin. Here, we develop a whole-brain sMRI pipeline and validate sMRI metrics with quantitative measures of tumor infiltration. METHODS Whole-brain sMRI metabolite maps were coregistered with surgical planning MRI and imported into a neuronavigation system to guide tissue sampling in GBM patients receiving 5-aminolevulinic acid fluorescence-guided surgery. Samples were collected from regions with metabolic abnormalities in a biopsy-like fashion before bulk resection. Tissue fluorescence was measured ex vivo using a hand-held spectrometer. Tissue samples were immunostained for Sox2 and analyzed to quantify the density of staining cells using a novel digital pathology image analysis tool. Correlations among sMRI markers, Sox2 density, and ex vivo fluorescence were evaluated. RESULTS Spectroscopic MRI biomarkers exhibit significant correlations with Sox2-positive cell density and ex vivo fluorescence. The choline to N-acetylaspartate ratio showed significant associations with each quantitative marker (Pearson's ρ = 0.82, P < .001 and ρ = 0.36, P < .0001, respectively). Clinically, sMRI metabolic abnormalities predated contrast enhancement at sites of tumor recurrence and exhibited an inverse relationship with progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS As it identifies tumor infiltration and regions at high risk for recurrence, sMRI could complement conventional MRI to improve local control in GBM patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James S Cordova
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (J.S.C., Z.L., S.S.G., C.A.H., H.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., E.S.); Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., Z.L., J.J.O., C.G.H., H.S.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia(S.S.G., L.A.D.C., B.K., H.S.); Department of Biomedical informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(L.A.D.C.); Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(J.J.O., C.G.H.); Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(S.G.N.); Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (C.G.H.)
| | - Hui-Kuo G Shu
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (J.S.C., Z.L., S.S.G., C.A.H., H.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., E.S.); Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., Z.L., J.J.O., C.G.H., H.S.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia(S.S.G., L.A.D.C., B.K., H.S.); Department of Biomedical informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(L.A.D.C.); Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(J.J.O., C.G.H.); Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(S.G.N.); Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (C.G.H.)
| | - Zhongxing Liang
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (J.S.C., Z.L., S.S.G., C.A.H., H.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., E.S.); Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., Z.L., J.J.O., C.G.H., H.S.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia(S.S.G., L.A.D.C., B.K., H.S.); Department of Biomedical informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(L.A.D.C.); Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(J.J.O., C.G.H.); Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(S.G.N.); Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (C.G.H.)
| | - Saumya S Gurbani
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (J.S.C., Z.L., S.S.G., C.A.H., H.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., E.S.); Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., Z.L., J.J.O., C.G.H., H.S.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia(S.S.G., L.A.D.C., B.K., H.S.); Department of Biomedical informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(L.A.D.C.); Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(J.J.O., C.G.H.); Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(S.G.N.); Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (C.G.H.)
| | - Lee A D Cooper
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (J.S.C., Z.L., S.S.G., C.A.H., H.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., E.S.); Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., Z.L., J.J.O., C.G.H., H.S.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia(S.S.G., L.A.D.C., B.K., H.S.); Department of Biomedical informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(L.A.D.C.); Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(J.J.O., C.G.H.); Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(S.G.N.); Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (C.G.H.)
| | - Chad A Holder
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (J.S.C., Z.L., S.S.G., C.A.H., H.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., E.S.); Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., Z.L., J.J.O., C.G.H., H.S.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia(S.S.G., L.A.D.C., B.K., H.S.); Department of Biomedical informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(L.A.D.C.); Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(J.J.O., C.G.H.); Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(S.G.N.); Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (C.G.H.)
| | - Jeffrey J Olson
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (J.S.C., Z.L., S.S.G., C.A.H., H.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., E.S.); Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., Z.L., J.J.O., C.G.H., H.S.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia(S.S.G., L.A.D.C., B.K., H.S.); Department of Biomedical informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(L.A.D.C.); Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(J.J.O., C.G.H.); Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(S.G.N.); Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (C.G.H.)
| | - Brad Kairdolf
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (J.S.C., Z.L., S.S.G., C.A.H., H.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., E.S.); Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., Z.L., J.J.O., C.G.H., H.S.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia(S.S.G., L.A.D.C., B.K., H.S.); Department of Biomedical informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(L.A.D.C.); Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(J.J.O., C.G.H.); Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(S.G.N.); Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (C.G.H.)
| | - Eduard Schreibmann
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (J.S.C., Z.L., S.S.G., C.A.H., H.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., E.S.); Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., Z.L., J.J.O., C.G.H., H.S.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia(S.S.G., L.A.D.C., B.K., H.S.); Department of Biomedical informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(L.A.D.C.); Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(J.J.O., C.G.H.); Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(S.G.N.); Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (C.G.H.)
| | - Stewart G Neill
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (J.S.C., Z.L., S.S.G., C.A.H., H.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., E.S.); Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., Z.L., J.J.O., C.G.H., H.S.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia(S.S.G., L.A.D.C., B.K., H.S.); Department of Biomedical informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(L.A.D.C.); Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(J.J.O., C.G.H.); Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(S.G.N.); Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (C.G.H.)
| | - Constantinos G Hadjipanayis
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (J.S.C., Z.L., S.S.G., C.A.H., H.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., E.S.); Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., Z.L., J.J.O., C.G.H., H.S.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia(S.S.G., L.A.D.C., B.K., H.S.); Department of Biomedical informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(L.A.D.C.); Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(J.J.O., C.G.H.); Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(S.G.N.); Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (C.G.H.)
| | - Hyunsuk Shim
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (J.S.C., Z.L., S.S.G., C.A.H., H.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., E.S.); Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia(H.G.S., Z.L., J.J.O., C.G.H., H.S.); Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia(S.S.G., L.A.D.C., B.K., H.S.); Department of Biomedical informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(L.A.D.C.); Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(J.J.O., C.G.H.); Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia(S.G.N.); Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (C.G.H.)
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Simi V, Joseph J. Segmentation of Glioblastoma Multiforme from MR Images – A comprehensive review. THE EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE 2015. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrnm.2015.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022] Open
|
28
|
Wangaryattawanich P, Hatami M, Wang J, Thomas G, Flanders A, Kirby J, Wintermark M, Huang ES, Bakhtiari AS, Luedi MM, Hashmi SS, Rubin DL, Chen JY, Hwang SN, Freymann J, Holder CA, Zinn PO, Colen RR. Multicenter imaging outcomes study of The Cancer Genome Atlas glioblastoma patient cohort: imaging predictors of overall and progression-free survival. Neuro Oncol 2015. [PMID: 26203066 DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nov117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite an aggressive therapeutic approach, the prognosis for most patients with glioblastoma (GBM) remains poor. The aim of this study was to determine the significance of preoperative MRI variables, both quantitative and qualitative, with regard to overall and progression-free survival in GBM. METHODS We retrospectively identified 94 untreated GBM patients from the Cancer Imaging Archive who had pretreatment MRI and corresponding patient outcomes and clinical information in The Cancer Genome Atlas. Qualitative imaging assessments were based on the Visually Accessible Rembrandt Images feature-set criteria. Volumetric parameters were obtained of the specific tumor components: contrast enhancement, necrosis, and edema/invasion. Cox regression was used to assess prognostic and survival significance of each image. RESULTS Univariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated 10 imaging features and 2 clinical variables to be significantly associated with overall survival. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that tumor-enhancing volume (P = .03) and eloquent brain involvement (P < .001) were independent prognostic indicators of overall survival. In the multivariable Cox analysis of the volumetric features, the edema/invasion volume of more than 85 000 mm(3) and the proportion of enhancing tumor were significantly correlated with higher mortality (Ps = .004 and .003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Preoperative MRI parameters have a significant prognostic role in predicting survival in patients with GBM, thus making them useful for patient stratification and endpoint biomarkers in clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pattana Wangaryattawanich
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Masumeh Hatami
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Jixin Wang
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Ginu Thomas
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Adam Flanders
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Justin Kirby
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Max Wintermark
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Erich S Huang
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Ali Shojaee Bakhtiari
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Markus M Luedi
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Syed S Hashmi
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Daniel L Rubin
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - James Y Chen
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Scott N Hwang
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - John Freymann
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Chad A Holder
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Pascal O Zinn
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| | - Rivka R Colen
- Departments of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.W., M.H., J.W., G.T., A.S.B., M.M.L., R.R.C.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.W.); Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology/ENT, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.F.); Bioinformatics Analyst III, Clinical Monitoring Research Program (CMRP), Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.K.); Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California (M.W.); Cancer Research, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington (E.S.H.); Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas (S.S.H.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (D.L.R.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California (J.Y.C.); Neuroradiology Section, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (S.N.H.); Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (C.A.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (P.O.Z.); Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (R.R.C.)
| |
Collapse
|