Prediction of malignant glioma grades using contrast-enhanced T1-weighted and T2-weighted magnetic resonance images based on a radiomic analysis.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Algorithms
Area Under Curve
Brain Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Child
Contrast Media
/ chemistry
Databases as Topic
Female
Glioma
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Machine Learning
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
ROC Curve
Reproducibility of Results
Young Adult
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 12 2019
19 12 2019
Historique:
received:
08
01
2019
accepted:
04
12
2019
entrez:
21
12
2019
pubmed:
21
12
2019
medline:
11
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We conducted a feasibility study to predict malignant glioma grades via radiomic analysis using contrast-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance images (CE-T1WIs) and T2-weighted magnetic resonance images (T2WIs). We proposed a framework and applied it to CE-T1WIs and T2WIs (with tumor region data) acquired preoperatively from 157 patients with malignant glioma (grade III: 55, grade IV: 102) as the primary dataset and 67 patients with malignant glioma (grade III: 22, grade IV: 45) as the validation dataset. Radiomic features such as size/shape, intensity, histogram, and texture features were extracted from the tumor regions on the CE-T1WIs and T2WIs. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) test and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression (LASSO-LR) were employed to select the radiomic features. Various machine learning (ML) algorithms were used to construct prediction models for the malignant glioma grades using the selected radiomic features. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) was implemented to evaluate the performance of the prediction models in the primary dataset. The selected radiomic features for all folds in the LOOCV of the primary dataset were used to perform an independent validation. As evaluation indices, accuracies, sensitivities, specificities, and values for the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (or simply the area under the curve (AUC)) for all prediction models were calculated. The mean AUC value for all prediction models constructed by the ML algorithms in the LOOCV of the primary dataset was 0.902 ± 0.024 (95% CI (confidence interval), 0.873-0.932). In the independent validation, the mean AUC value for all prediction models was 0.747 ± 0.034 (95% CI, 0.705-0.790). The results of this study suggest that the malignant glioma grades could be sufficiently and easily predicted by preparing the CE-T1WIs, T2WIs, and tumor delineations for each patient. Our proposed framework may be an effective tool for preoperatively grading malignant gliomas.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31857632
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-55922-0
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-55922-0
pmc: PMC6923390
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19411Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Nov;30(5):999-1004
pubmed: 19856413
Radiology. 2016 Feb;278(2):563-77
pubmed: 26579733
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Dec;48(6):1518-1528
pubmed: 29573085
Neuroradiology. 2011 Jul;53(7):483-91
pubmed: 20857285
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 31;7(1):10117
pubmed: 28860628
Sci Data. 2017 Sep 05;4:170117
pubmed: 28872634
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2017 Jul;2017:3081-3084
pubmed: 29060549
Radiol Phys Technol. 2018 Mar;11(1):27-35
pubmed: 29209915
Nat Commun. 2014 Jun 03;5:4006
pubmed: 24892406
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 May;33(5):852-7
pubmed: 22268087
Neuroradiology. 1995 Feb;37(2):89-93
pubmed: 7761007
Expert Syst Appl. 2017 Nov 30;87:384-391
pubmed: 30319179
Eur J Radiol. 2018 Jan;98:100-106
pubmed: 29279146
Acta Neuropathol. 2016 Jun;131(6):803-20
pubmed: 27157931
Phys Med. 2019 Apr;60:188-198
pubmed: 30910431
Phys Med. 2018 Apr;48:27-36
pubmed: 29728226
J Digit Imaging. 2013 Dec;26(6):1045-57
pubmed: 23884657
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004 Feb;25(2):214-21
pubmed: 14970020
Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Jan;22(1):81-91
pubmed: 14972397
Int J Biomed Imaging. 2018 May 8;2018:2512037
pubmed: 29853828
Radiology. 2006 Dec;241(3):839-46
pubmed: 17032910
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2017;57(Suppl 1):9-102
pubmed: 28420810
J Neurosurg. 2007 Sep;107(3):600-9
pubmed: 17886561
Magn Reson Med. 2009 Dec;62(6):1609-18
pubmed: 19859947
J Neurooncol. 2011 Jul;103(3):619-27
pubmed: 20949305
Ann Oncol. 2014 Sep;25 Suppl 3:iii93-101
pubmed: 24782454
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Jul 21;60(14):5471-96
pubmed: 26119045
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2019 Apr;6(2):024501
pubmed: 31037246
Acta Radiol. 2011 Nov 1;52(9):1052-60
pubmed: 21969702
PeerJ. 2018 Nov 22;6:e5982
pubmed: 30498643
Phys Med. 2018 Jan;45:192-197
pubmed: 29329660
Oncotarget. 2017 Jul 18;8(29):47816-47830
pubmed: 28599282
BMC Bioinformatics. 2006 Nov 24;7:514
pubmed: 17125514
Med Sci Monit. 2017 May 07;23:2168-2178
pubmed: 28478462