Multimodal MRI radiomic models to predict genomic mutations in diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma with missing imaging modalities.
MRI
diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma
genomic mutation
missing data
prediction
radiomics
Journal
Frontiers in medicine
ISSN: 2296-858X
Titre abrégé: Front Med (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101648047
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
18
10
2022
accepted:
06
02
2023
entrez:
13
3
2023
pubmed:
14
3
2023
medline:
14
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Predicting H3.1, TP53, and ACVR1 mutations in DIPG could aid in the selection of therapeutic options. The contribution of clinical data and multi-modal MRI were studied for these three predictive tasks. To keep the maximum number of subjects, which is essential for a rare disease, missing data were considered. A multi-modal model was proposed, collecting all available data for each patient, without performing any imputation. A retrospective cohort of 80 patients with confirmed DIPG and at least one of the four MR modalities (T1w, T1c, T2w, and FLAIR), acquired with two different MR scanners was built. A pipeline including standardization of MR data and extraction of radiomic features within the tumor was applied. The values of radiomic features between the two MR scanners were realigned using the ComBat method. For each prediction task, the most robust features were selected based on a recursive feature elimination with cross-validation. Five different models, one based on clinical data and one per MR modality, were developed using logistic regression classifiers. The prediction of the multi-modal model was defined as the average of all possible prediction results among five for each patient. The performances of the models were compared using a leave-one-out approach. The percentage of missing modalities ranged from 6 to 11% across modalities and tasks. The performance of each individual model was dependent on each specific task, with an AUC of the ROC curve ranging from 0.63 to 0.80. The multi-modal model outperformed the clinical model for each prediction tasks, thus demonstrating the added value of MRI. Furthermore, regardless of performance criteria, the multi-modal model came in the first place or second place (very close to first). In the leave-one-out approach, the prediction of H3.1 (resp. ACVR1 and TP53) mutations achieved a balanced accuracy of 87.8% (resp. 82.1 and 78.3%). Compared with a single modality approach, the multi-modal model combining multiple MRI modalities and clinical features was the most powerful to predict H3.1, ACVR1, and TP53 mutations and provided prediction, even in the case of missing modality. It could be proposed in the absence of a conclusive biopsy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36910474
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1071447
pmc: PMC9995801
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1071447Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Khalid, Goya-Outi, Escobar, Dangouloff-Ros, Grigis, Philippe, Boddaert, Grill, Frouin and Frouin.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
TE was employed by DOSIsoft SA. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Front Oncol. 2020 Jan 31;10:43
pubmed: 32083003
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2021 Nov;2021:3809-3812
pubmed: 34892065
Neuroimage. 2017 Nov 1;161:149-170
pubmed: 28826946
Radiology. 2020 May;295(2):328-338
pubmed: 32154773
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 6;12(6):e0178843
pubmed: 28586353
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Dec 04;13(23):
pubmed: 34885222
Cancer Res. 2017 Nov 1;77(21):e104-e107
pubmed: 29092951
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Nov 15;102(4):1143-1158
pubmed: 30170872
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010 Jun;29(6):1310-20
pubmed: 20378467
Neuro Oncol. 2021 Aug 2;23(8):1231-1251
pubmed: 34185076
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Nov 15;25(22):6788-6800
pubmed: 31481512
Eur Radiol. 2021 Apr;31(4):2272-2280
pubmed: 32975661
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;19(8):1025-1034
pubmed: 28371920
Med Phys. 2022 Jun;49(6):3816-3829
pubmed: 35302238
Insights Imaging. 2020 Aug 12;11(1):91
pubmed: 32785796
MAGMA. 2021 Jun;34(3):355-366
pubmed: 33180226
Neurooncol Adv. 2021 Mar 05;3(1):vdab042
pubmed: 33977272
J Nucl Med. 2016 Nov;57(11):1823-1828
pubmed: 27261515
J Neurooncol. 2022 Jul;158(3):405-412
pubmed: 35606633
Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018 Jul 30;2018:1729071
pubmed: 30154684
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Jan;130:172-179
pubmed: 30097251
Radiology. 2016 Feb;278(2):563-77
pubmed: 26579733
Nat Genet. 2014 May;46(5):444-450
pubmed: 24705251
Front Oncol. 2015 Oct 21;5:237
pubmed: 26557503
J Neurooncol. 2017 Aug;134(1):231-240
pubmed: 28560664
Childs Nerv Syst. 2021 Aug;37(8):2497-2508
pubmed: 33973057
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 1;36(19):1963-1972
pubmed: 29746225
Nat Genet. 2014 May;46(5):451-6
pubmed: 24705254
Radiology. 2021 May;299(2):313-323
pubmed: 33687284
Neuro Oncol. 2022 Sep 1;24(9):1598-1608
pubmed: 35148393
Neuroimage. 2012 Aug 15;62(2):782-90
pubmed: 21979382
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 23;10(1):12340
pubmed: 32704007
Clin Radiol. 2010 Jul;65(7):517-21
pubmed: 20541651
Cancer Res. 2018 Aug 15;78(16):4786-4789
pubmed: 29959149
Nat Commun. 2014 Jun 03;5:4006
pubmed: 24892406
Eur Radiol. 2021 Dec;31(12):8913-8924
pubmed: 34003354
Neuroimage Clin. 2014 Aug 15;6:9-19
pubmed: 25379412
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jun;21(6):e330-e336
pubmed: 32502459
Bioengineering (Basel). 2022 Oct 07;9(10):
pubmed: 36290500
Eur J Radiol. 2019 May;114:152-159
pubmed: 31005167
Med Phys. 2022 Apr;49(4):2820-2835
pubmed: 34455593
Acta Neuropathol. 2015 Dec;130(6):815-27
pubmed: 26399631
Phys Med Biol. 2018 May 10;63(10):105003
pubmed: 29633962
Neuro Oncol. 2020 Nov 26;22(11):1647-1657
pubmed: 32506137
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Mar 09;14(6):
pubmed: 35326549
Insights Imaging. 2021 Oct 21;12(1):152
pubmed: 34676470
Cancer Med. 2022 Feb;11(4):1048-1058
pubmed: 34953060
Cancer Discov. 2022 Feb;12(2):416-431
pubmed: 34551970
Sci Rep. 2019 Nov 28;9(1):17869
pubmed: 31780708