Uncertainty quantification in the radiogenomics modeling of EGFR amplification in glioblastoma.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 02 2021
16 02 2021
Historique:
received:
06
02
2020
accepted:
18
01
2021
entrez:
17
2
2021
pubmed:
18
2
2021
medline:
30
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Radiogenomics uses machine-learning (ML) to directly connect the morphologic and physiological appearance of tumors on clinical imaging with underlying genomic features. Despite extensive growth in the area of radiogenomics across many cancers, and its potential role in advancing clinical decision making, no published studies have directly addressed uncertainty in these model predictions. We developed a radiogenomics ML model to quantify uncertainty using transductive Gaussian Processes (GP) and a unique dataset of 95 image-localized biopsies with spatially matched MRI from 25 untreated Glioblastoma (GBM) patients. The model generated predictions for regional EGFR amplification status (a common and important target in GBM) to resolve the intratumoral genetic heterogeneity across each individual tumor-a key factor for future personalized therapeutic paradigms. The model used probability distributions for each sample prediction to quantify uncertainty, and used transductive learning to reduce the overall uncertainty. We compared predictive accuracy and uncertainty of the transductive learning GP model against a standard GP model using leave-one-patient-out cross validation. Additionally, we used a separate dataset containing 24 image-localized biopsies from 7 high-grade glioma patients to validate the model. Predictive uncertainty informed the likelihood of achieving an accurate sample prediction. When stratifying predictions based on uncertainty, we observed substantially higher performance in the group cohort (75% accuracy, n = 95) and amongst sample predictions with the lowest uncertainty (83% accuracy, n = 72) compared to predictions with higher uncertainty (48% accuracy, n = 23), due largely to data interpolation (rather than extrapolation). On the separate validation set, our model achieved 78% accuracy amongst the sample predictions with lowest uncertainty. We present a novel approach to quantify radiogenomics uncertainty to enhance model performance and clinical interpretability. This should help integrate more reliable radiogenomics models for improved medical decision-making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33594116
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83141-z
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-83141-z
pmc: PMC7886858
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3932Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA015083
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA221938
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R21 NS082609
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01 CA220378
Pays : United States
Références
Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Dec 15;11(24 Pt 1):8600-5
pubmed: 16361543
Neuro Oncol. 2012 May;14(5):613-23
pubmed: 22492960
Radiology. 2008 Oct;249(1):268-77
pubmed: 18796682
Radiology. 2013 May;267(2):560-9
pubmed: 23392431
Sci Transl Med. 2015 Sep 2;7(303):303ra138
pubmed: 26333934
Neuro Oncol. 2012 Jul;14(7):942-54
pubmed: 22711606
Cell. 2013 Oct 10;155(2):462-77
pubmed: 24120142
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Apr;27(4):859-67
pubmed: 16611779
Nature. 2012 Jul 18;487(7407):330-7
pubmed: 22810696
Nature. 2012 Sep 27;489(7417):519-25
pubmed: 22960745
Mol Cancer Ther. 2013 Jan;12(1):104-16
pubmed: 23171949
Radiology. 2014 Aug;272(2):484-93
pubmed: 24646147
J Comput Biol. 2006 Mar;13(2):215-28
pubmed: 16597236
Mutagenesis. 2014 Sep;29(5):341-50
pubmed: 25103728
Cancer Cell. 2011 Dec 13;20(6):695-7
pubmed: 22172718
Nature. 2011 Jun 29;474(7353):609-15
pubmed: 21720365
Radiology. 2006 Sep;240(3):803-10
pubmed: 16926329
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Jan;19(1):128-137
pubmed: 27502248
Nat Rev Cancer. 2018 Aug;18(8):500-510
pubmed: 29777175
Radiology. 2017 Dec;285(3):713-718
pubmed: 29155639
PLoS Genet. 2014 Feb 13;10(2):e1004135
pubmed: 24550739
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;19(6):833-844
pubmed: 27932423
Nature. 2012 Oct 4;490(7418):61-70
pubmed: 23000897
Radiology. 2010 Feb;254(2):564-76
pubmed: 20093527
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Oct;27(9):1969-74
pubmed: 17032877
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 19;8(8):e71704
pubmed: 23977117
Trends Mol Med. 2011 Jun;17(6):301-312
pubmed: 21411370
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Mar 5;110(10):4009-14
pubmed: 23412337
Int J Comput Biol Drug Des. 2008;1(4):368-95
pubmed: 19774103
Med Decis Making. 2012 Sep-Oct;32(5):722-32
pubmed: 22990087
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Dec;36(12):2242-9
pubmed: 26359151
Neural Netw. 2006 Mar;19(2):225-35
pubmed: 16530384
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Jan;33(1):69-76
pubmed: 22095961
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 24;10(11):e0141506
pubmed: 26599106
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Sep;74(3):772-84
pubmed: 25227668
Nature. 2008 Oct 23;455(7216):1061-8
pubmed: 18772890
Clin Neuroradiol. 2015 Jun;25(2):143-50
pubmed: 24474262
Nat Rev Cancer. 2012 Apr 19;12(5):323-34
pubmed: 22513401
Neuro Oncol. 2012 Jul;14(7):919-30
pubmed: 22561797