Can Deep Learning Replace Gadolinium in Neuro-Oncology?: A Reader Study.
Journal
Investigative radiology
ISSN: 1536-0210
Titre abrégé: Invest Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0045377
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2022
01 02 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
30
7
2021
medline:
15
4
2022
entrez:
29
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This monocentric retrospective study leveraged 200 multiparametric brain MRIs acquired between November 2019 and February 2020 at Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus (Villejuif, France). A total of 145 patients were included: 107 formed the training sample (55 ± 14 years, 58 women) and 38 the separate test sample (62 ± 12 years, 22 women). Patients had glioma, brain metastases, meningioma, or no enhancing lesion. T1, T2-FLAIR, diffusion-weighted imaging, low-dose, and standard-dose postcontrast T1 sequences were acquired. A deep network was trained to process the precontrast and low-dose sequences to predict "virtual" surrogate images for contrast-enhanced T1. Once trained, the deep learning method was evaluated on the test sample. The discrepancies between the predicted virtual images and the standard-dose MRIs were qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated using both automated voxel-wise metrics and a reader study, where 2 radiologists graded image qualities and marked all visible enhancing lesions. The automated analysis of the test brain MRIs computed a structural similarity index of 87.1% ± 4.8% between the predicted virtual sequences and the reference contrast-enhanced T1 MRIs, a peak signal-to-noise ratio of 31.6 ± 2.0 dB, and an area under the curve of 96.4% ± 3.1%. At Youden's operating point, the voxel-wise sensitivity (SE) and specificity were 96.4% and 94.8%, respectively. The reader study found that virtual images were preferred to standard-dose MRI in terms of image quality (P = 0.008). A total of 91 reference lesions were identified in the 38 test T1 sequences enhanced with full dose of contrast agent. On average across readers, the brain lesion SE of the virtual images was 83% for lesions larger than 10 mm (n = 42), and the associated false detection rate was 0.08 lesion/patient. The corresponding positive predictive value of detected lesions was 92%, and the F1 score was 88%. Lesion detection performance, however, dropped when smaller lesions were included: average SE was 67% for lesions larger than 5 mm (n = 74), and 56% with all lesions included regardless of their size. The false detection rate remained below 0.50 lesion/patient in all cases, and the positive predictive value remained above 73%. The composite F1 score was 63% at worst. The proposed deep learning method for virtual contrast-enhanced T1 brain MRI prediction showed very high quantitative performance when evaluated with standard voxel-wise metrics. The reader study demonstrated that, for lesions larger than 10 mm, good detection performance could be maintained despite a 4-fold division in contrast agent usage, unveiling a promising avenue for reducing the gadolinium exposure of returning patients. Small lesions proved, however, difficult to handle for the deep network, showing that full-dose injections remain essential for accurate first-line diagnosis in neuro-oncology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34324463
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000811
pii: 00004424-202202000-00004
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Gadolinium
AU0V1LM3JT
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
99-107Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: The research study was funded by Guerbet. Among its portfolio of solutions for medical imaging, Guerbet commercializes Dotarem (gadoterate meglumine), a gadolinium-based contrast agent.
Références
Runge VM. Safety of the gadolinium-based contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging, focusing in part on their accumulation in the brain and especially the dentate nucleus. Invest Radiol . 2016;51:273–279. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000273.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000273
Caravan P, Ellison JJ, McMurry TJ, et al. Gadolinium(III) chelates as MRI contrast agents: structure, dynamics, and applications. Chem Rev . 1999;99:2293–2352. doi:10.1021/cr980440x.
doi: 10.1021/cr980440x
Grobner T. Gadolinium—a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant . 2006;21:1104–1108. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfk062.
doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfk062
Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol . 2006;17:2359–2362. doi:10.1681/ASN.2006060601.
doi: 10.1681/ASN.2006060601
Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, et al. High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology . 2014;270:834–841. doi:10.1148/radiol.13131669.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.13131669
McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology . 2015;275:772–782. doi:10.1148/radiol.15150025.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.15150025
Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ, et al. Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology . 2015;275:783–791. doi:10.1148/radiol.2015150337.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015150337
Zivadinov R, Bergsland N, Hagemeier J, et al. Cumulative gadodiamide administration leads to brain gadolinium deposition in early MS. Neurology . 2019;93:E611–E623. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007892.
doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007892
Debevits JJ 4th, Munbodh R, Bageac D, et al. Gray matter nucleus hyperintensity after monthly triple-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine with long-term magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol . 2020;55:629–635. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000663.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000663
Strzeminska I, Factor C, Robert P, et al. Long-term evaluation of gadolinium retention in rat brain after single injection of a clinically relevant dose of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Invest Radiol . 2020;55:138–143. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000623.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000623
Smith TE, Steven A, Bagert BA. Gadolinium deposition in neurology clinical practice. Ochsner J . 2019;19:17–25. doi:10.31486/toj.18.0111.
doi: 10.31486/toj.18.0111
Radbruch A, Richter H, Fingerhut S, et al. Gadolinium deposition in the brain in a large animal model: comparison of linear and macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents. Invest Radiol . 2019;54:531–536. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000575.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000575
Bower DV, Richter JK, Von Tengg-Kobligk H, et al. Gadolinium-based MRI contrast agents induce mitochondrial toxicity and cell death in human neurons, and toxicity increases with reduced kinetic stability of the agent. Invest Radiol . 2019;54:453–463. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000567.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000567
Radbruch A, Richter H, Bücker P, et al. Is small fiber neuropathy induced by gadolinium-based contrast agents? Invest Radiol . 2020;55:473–480. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000677.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000677
Wang S, Hesse B, Roman M, et al. Increased retention of gadolinium in the inflamed brain after repeated administration of gadopentetate dimeglumine: a proof-of-concept study in mice combining ICP-MS and micro- and nano-SR-XRF. Invest Radiol . 2019;54:617–626. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000571.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000571
European Medicines Agency. EMA's final opinion confirms restrictions on use of linear gadolinium agents in body scans. 2017. Document Reference: EMA/625317/2017. Available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/referral/gadolinium-article-31-referral-emas-final-opinion-confirms-restrictions-use-linear-gadolinium-agents_en.pdf . Accessed July 6, 2021.
FDA warns that gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are retained in the body. U.S. Food Drug Adm. Website. 2017. Available at: www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm589213.htm . Accessed February 25, 2021.
Falk Delgado A, Van Westen D, Nilsson M, et al. Diagnostic value of alternative techniques to gadolinium-based contrast agents in MR neuroimaging—a comprehensive overview. Insights Imaging . 2019;10:84. doi:10.1186/s13244-019-0771-1.
doi: 10.1186/s13244-019-0771-1
Zhou J, Payen JF, Wilson DA, et al. Using the amide proton signals of intracellular proteins and peptides to detect pH effects in MRI. Nat Med . 2003;9:1085–1090. doi:10.1038/nm907.
doi: 10.1038/nm907
Ward KM, Aletras AH, Balaban RS. A new class of contrast agents for MRI based on proton chemical exchange dependent saturation transfer (CEST). J Magn Reson . 2000;143:79–87. doi:10.1006/jmre.1999.1956.
doi: 10.1006/jmre.1999.1956
Kamimura K, Nakajo M, Yoneyama T, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging of tumors: theory, clinical applications, pitfalls, and future directions. Jpn J Radiol . 2019;37:109–116. doi:10.1007/s11604-018-0787-3.
doi: 10.1007/s11604-018-0787-3
Burtscher IM, Holtås S. Proton MR spectroscopy in clinical routine. J Magn Reson Imaging . 2001;13:560–567. doi:10.1002/jmri.1079.
doi: 10.1002/jmri.1079
Haller S, Zaharchuk G, Thomas DL, et al. Arterial spin labeling perfusion of the brain: emerging clinical applications. Radiology . 2016;281:337–356. doi:10.1148/radiol.2016150789.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016150789
Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, et al. MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology . 1986;161:401–407. doi:10.1148/radiology.161.2.3763909.
doi: 10.1148/radiology.161.2.3763909
Kim DY, Kim HS, Goh MJ, et al. Utility of intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for distinguishing recurrent metastatic tumor from treatment effect following gamma knife radiosurgery: initial experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol . 2014;35:2082–2090. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3995.
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3995
Suh CH, Kim HS, Lee SS, et al. Atypical imaging features of primary central nervous system lymphoma that mimics glioblastoma: utility of intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology . 2014;272:504–513. doi:10.1148/radiol.14131895.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.14131895
Federau C, Meuli R, O'Brien K, et al. Perfusion measurement in brain gliomas with intravoxel incoherent motion MRI. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol . 2014;35:256–262. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3686.
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3686
Bendszus M, Roberts D, Kolumban B, et al. Dose finding study of gadopiclenol, a new macrocyclic contrast agent, in MRI of central nervous system. Invest Radiol . 2020;55:129–137. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000624.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000624
Rodríguez-Galván A, Rivera M, García-López P, et al. Gadolinium-containing carbon nanomaterials for magnetic resonance imaging: trends and challenges. J Cell Mol Med . 2020;24:3779–3794. doi:10.1111/jcmm.15065.
doi: 10.1111/jcmm.15065
Lancelot E, Raynaud JS, Desché P. Current and future MR contrast agents: seeking a better chemical stability and relaxivity for optimal safety and efficacy. Invest Radiol . 2020;55:578–588. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000684.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000684
Erstad DJ, Ramsay IA, Jordan VC, et al. Tumor contrast enhancement and whole-body elimination of the manganese-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent Mn-PyC3A. Invest Radiol . 2019;54:697–703. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000593.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000593
Sudarshana DM, Nair G, Dwyer JT, et al. Manganese-enhanced MRI of the brain in healthy volunteers. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol . 2019;40:1309–1316. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6152.
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6152
Bales BC, Grimmond B, Johnson BF, et al. Fe-HBED analogs: a promising class of iron-chelate contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Contrast Media Mol Imaging . 2019;2019:8356931. doi:10.1155/2019/8356931.
doi: 10.1155/2019/8356931
Dadfar SM, Roemhild K, Drude NI, et al. Iron oxide nanoparticles: diagnostic, therapeutic and theranostic applications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev . 2019;138:302–325. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2019.01.005.
doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2019.01.005
Gong E, Pauly JM, Wintermark M, et al. Deep learning enables reduced gadolinium dose for contrast-enhanced brain MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging . 2018;48:330–340. doi:10.1002/jmri.25970.
doi: 10.1002/jmri.25970
Kleesiek J, Morshuis JN, Isensee F, et al. Can virtual contrast enhancement in brain MRI replace gadolinium?: a feasibility study. Invest Radiol . 2019;54:653–660. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000583.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000583
Bône A, Ammari S, Lamarque J-P, et al. Contrast-enhanced brain MRI synthesis with deep learning: key input modalities and asymptotic performance. IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging . 2021;18:1159–1163. doi:10.1109/ISBI48211.2021.9434029.
doi: 10.1109/ISBI48211.2021.9434029
Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, et al. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process . 2004;13:600–612. doi:10.1109/TIP.2003.819861.
doi: 10.1109/TIP.2003.819861
Gordon Y, Partovi S, Müller-Eschner M, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: fundamentals and application to the evaluation of the peripheral perfusion. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther . 2014;4:147–164. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2223-3652.2014.03.01.
doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-3652.2014.03.01
Thust SC, Heiland S, Falini A, et al. Glioma imaging in Europe: a survey of 220 centres and recommendations for best clinical practice. Eur Radiol . 2018;28:3306–3317. doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5314-5.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5314-5
Milletari F, Navab N, Ahmadi SA. V-Net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. Proc Int Conf 3D Vision . 2016;4:565–571. doi:10.1109/3DV.2016.79.
doi: 10.1109/3DV.2016.79
Fagerland MW, Lydersen S, Laake P. The McNemar test for binary matched-pairs data: Mid-p and asymptotic are better than exact conditional. BMC Med Res Methodol . 2013;13:91. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-91.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-91
Isensee F, Jaeger PF, Kohl SAA, et al. nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nat Methods . 2021;18:203–211. doi:10.1038/s41592-020-01008-z.
doi: 10.1038/s41592-020-01008-z