Radiomic profiling of glioblastoma: Identifying an imaging predictor of patient survival with improved performance over established clinical and radiologic risk models

Radiology

Volumn 280, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 880-889

  Kickingereder, Philipp ^a   Burth, Sina ^a   Wick, Antje ^b   Götz, Michael ^c   Eidel, Oliver ^a   Schlemmer, Heinz Peter ^a   Maier Hein, Klaus H ^c   Wick, Wolfgang ^b,d   Bendszus, Martin ^a   Radbruch, Alexander ^d   Bonekamp, David ^d  

^a Department of Neuroradiology ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^c Medical and Biological Informatics Division   (United States)

^d GERMAN CANCER RESEARCH CENTER DKFZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GADOTERATE MEGLUMINE; CONTRAST MEDIUM; MEGLUMINE; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUND;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; ARTICLE; BRAIN BLOOD VOLUME; CANCER SURVIVAL; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGING AND DISPLAY; KARNOFSKY PERFORMANCE STATUS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; RADIOMIC PROFILING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURVIVAL PREDICTION; TUMOR VOLUME; VALIDATION PROCESS; BRAIN TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; GERMANY; MALE; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVIVAL RATE;

BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; GERMANY; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MEGLUMINE; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVIVAL RATE; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84986191505     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016160845     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, et al. The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 2007;114(2):97-109.
2. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Liao P, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2007-2011. Neuro-oncol 2014;16(Suppl 4):iv1-iv63.
3. Hartmann C, Hentschel B, Simon M, et al. Long-term survival in primary glioblastoma with versus without isocitrate dehydrogenase mutations. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19(18):5146-5157.
4. Hilario A, Sepulveda JM, Perez-Nuñez A, et al. A prognostic model based on preoperative MRI predicts overall survival in patients with diffuse gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35(6):1096-1102.
5. Çoban G, Mohan S, Kural F, Wang S, O'Rourke DM, Poptani H. Prognostic value of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with glioblastomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36(7):1247-1252.
6. Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 2014;5:4006.
7. Itakura H, Achrol AS, Mitchell LA, et al. Magnetic resonance image features identify glioblastoma phenotypic subtypes with distinct molecular pathway activities. Sci Transl Med 2015;7(303):303ra138.
8. Gevaert O, Mitchell LA, Achrol AS, et al. Glioblastoma multiforme: exploratory radiogenomic analysis by using quantitative image features. Radiology 2014;273(1):168-174.
9. Yamamoto S, Han W, Kim Y, et al. Breast cancer: radiogenomic biomarker reveals associations among dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, long noncoding RNA, and metastasis. Radiology 2015;275(2):384-392.
10. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 2016;278(2):563-577.
11. Fehr D, Veeraraghavan H, Wibmer A, et al. Automatic classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from multiparametric magnetic resonance images. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112(46):E6265-E6273.
12. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(11):1963-1972.
13. Kickingereder P, Wiestler B, Sahm F, et al. Primary central nervous system lymphoma and atypical glioblastoma: multiparametric differentiation by using diffusion-, perfusion-, and susceptibility-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 2014;272(3):843-850.
14. Bonekamp D, Mouridsen K, Radbruch A, et al. Assessment of tumor oxygenation and its impact on treatment response in bevacizumab-treated recurrent glioblastoma. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2016 Feb 9. [Epub ahead of print]
15. Kickingereder P, Wiestler B, Burth S, et al. Relative cerebral blood volume is a potential predictive imaging biomarker of bevacizumab efficacy in recurrent glioblastoma. Neuro-oncol 2015;17(8):1139-1147.
16. Kickingereder P, Radbruch A, Burth S, et al. MR perfusion-derived hemodynamic parametric response mapping of bevacizumab efficacy in recurrent glioblastoma. Radiology 2016;279(2):542-552.
17. Mouridsen K, Christensen S, Gyldensted L, Ostergaard L. Automatic selection of arterial input function using cluster analysis. Magn Reson Med 2006;55(3):524-531.
18. Wu O, Østergaard L, Weisskoff RM, Benner T, Rosen BR, Sorensen AG. Tracer arrival timing-insensitive technique for estimating flow in MR perfusion-weighted imaging using singular value decomposition with a block-circulant deconvolution matrix. Magn Reson Med 2003;50(1):164-174.
19. Ostergaard L, Weisskoff RM, Chesler DA, Gyldensted C, Rosen BR. High resolution measurement of cerebral blood flow using intravascular tracer bolus passages. Part I: Mathematical approach and statistical analysis. Magn Reson Med 1996;36(5):715-725.
20. Smith SM. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp 2002;17(3):143-155.
21. Jenkinson M, Bannister P, Brady M, Smith S. Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Neuroimage 2002;17(2):825-841.
22. Jenkinson M, Smith S. A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Med Image Anal 2001;5(2):143-156.
23. Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, et al. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 2006;31(3):1116-1128.
24. Ellingson BM, Zaw T, Cloughesy TF, et al. Comparison between intensity normalization techniques for dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC)-MRI estimates of cerebral blood volume (CBV) in human gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;35(6):1472-1477.
25. Tustison NJ, Avants BB, Cook PA, et al. N4ITK: improved N3 bias correction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010;29(6):1310-1320.
26. Sled JG, Zijdenbos AP, Evans AC. A nonparametric method for automatic correction of intensity nonuniformity in MRI data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1998;17(1):87-97.
27. Shinohara RT, Sweeney EM, Goldsmith J, et al. Statistical normalization techniques for magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage Clin 2014;6:9-19 [Published correction appears in Neuroimage Clin 2015;7:848.]
28. Nolden M, Zelzer S, Seitel A, et al. The Medical Imaging Interaction Toolkit: challenges and advances : 10 years of opensource development. Int J CARS 2013;8(4): 607-620.
29. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014.
30. Bair E, Tibshirani R. Semi-supervised methods to predict patient survival from gene expression data. PLoS Biol 2004; 2(4):E108.
31. Bair E, Tibshirani R. superpc: Supervised principal components. 2012. https://cran.rproject. org/web/packages/superpc/superpc. pdf. Published online 2012. Accessed June 2, 2016.
32. Bair E, Hastie T, Paul D, Tibshirani R. Prediction by supervised principal components. J Am Stat Assoc 2006;101(473):119-137.
33. Pellagatti A, Benner A, Mills KI, et al. Identification of gene expression-based prognostic markers in the hematopoietic stem cells of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. J Clin Oncol 2013;31(28):3557-3564.
34. De Cecco L, Bossi P, Locati L, Canevari S, Licitra L. Comprehensive gene expression meta-analysis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma microarray data defines a robust survival predictor. Ann Oncol 2014;25(8):1628-1635.
35. Chen X, Wang L, Smith JD, Zhang B. Supervised principal component analysis for gene set enrichment of microarray data with continuous or survival outcomes. Bioinformatics 2008;24(21):2474-2481.
36. Gerds TA, Schumacher M. Efron-type measures of prediction error for survival analysis. Biometrics 2007;63(4):1283-1287.
37. Schumacher M, Binder H, Gerds T. Assessment of survival prediction models based on microarray data. Bioinformatics 2007;23(14):1768-1774.
38. Mogensen UB, Ishwaran H, Gerds TA. Evaluating random forests for survival analysis using prediction error curves. J Stat Softw 2012;50(11):1-23.
39. Oh J, Henry RG, Pirzkall A, et al. Survival analysis in patients with glioblastoma multiforme: predictive value of choline-to-Nacetylaspartate index, apparent diffusion coefficient, and relative cerebral blood volume. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;19(5): 546-554.
40. Murakami R, Sugahara T, Nakamura H, et al. Malignant supratentorial astrocytoma treated with postoperative radiation therapy: prognostic value of pretreatment quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 2007;243(2):493-499.
41. Bonekamp D, Deike K, Wiestler B, et al. Association of overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI: Comparison of intraindividually matched T1-and T2-based bolus techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42(1):87-96.
42. Law M, Young RJ, Babb JS, et al. Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrastenhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2008;247(2):490-498.