Residual Deep Convolutional Neural Network Predicts MGMT Methylation Status

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 622-628

  Korfiatis, Panagiotis ^a   Kline, Timothy L ^a   Lachance, Daniel H ^a   Parney, Ian F ^a   Buckner, Jan C ^a   Erickson, Bradley J ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Deep learning; MGMT methylation; MRI

Indexed keywords

ALKYLATION; CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); DEEP LEARNING; DIAGNOSIS; FORECASTING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MEDICAL IMAGING; METHYLATION; NETWORK ARCHITECTURE; NEURAL NETWORKS; TUMORS;

BRAIN TUMORS; CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORK; METHYLTRANSFERASES; MOLECULAR BIOMARKER; MRI IMAGING; NEURAL ARCHITECTURES; PROOF OF CONCEPT; TUMOR SEGMENTATION;

DEEP NEURAL NETWORKS;

DNA LIGASE; DNA METHYLTRANSFERASE; MGMT PROTEIN, HUMAN; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR PROTEIN;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; GENETICS; HUMAN; METABOLISM; METHYLATION; NERVE CELL NETWORK; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROCEDURES;

DNA MODIFICATION METHYLASES; DNA REPAIR ENZYMES; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; METHYLATION; NERVE NET; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR PROTEINS;

EID: 85026904407     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: 1618727X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-017-0009-z     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Johnson DR, O’Neill BP: Glioblastoma survival in the United States before and during the temozolomide era. J Neurooncol 107:359–364, 2011
2. Ellingson BM, Wen PY, van den Bent MJ, Cloughesy TF: Pros and cons of current brain tumor imaging. Neuro Oncol 16(Suppl 7):vii2–vi11, 2014
3. Weizman L, Ben-Sira L, Joskowicz L, Aizenstein O, Shofty B, Constantini S, Ben-Bashat D: Prediction of brain MR scans in longitudinal tumor follow-up studies. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 15:179–187, 2012
4. Law M, Young RJ, Babb JS, Peccerelli N, Chheang S, Gruber ML, Miller DC, Golfinos JG, Zagzag D, Johnson G: Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 247:490–498, 2008
5. Jain R, Poisson LM, Gutman D et al.: Outcome prediction in patients with glioblastoma by using imaging, clinical, and genomic biomarkers: focus on the nonenhancing component of the tumor. Radiology 272:484–493, 2014
6. Zhang K, Wang X-Q, Zhou B, Zhang L: The prognostic value of MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma multiforme: a meta-analysis. Fam Cancer 12:449–458, 2013
7. Li H, Li J, Cheng G, Zhang J, Li X: IDH mutation and MGMT promoter methylation are associated with the pseudoprogression and improved prognosis of glioblastoma multiforme patients who have undergone concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide-based chemoradiotherapy. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 151:31–36, 2016
8. Rivera AL, Pelloski CE, Gilbert MR, Colman H, De La Cruz C, Sulman EP, Bekele BN, Aldape KD: MGMT promoter methylation is predictive of response to radiotherapy and prognostic in the absence of adjuvant alkylating chemotherapy for glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 12:116–121, 2010
9. Ellingson BM: Radiogenomics and imaging phenotypes in glioblastoma: novel observations and correlation with molecular characteristics. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 15:506, 2015
10. Rundle-Thiele D, Day B, Stringer B et al.: Using the apparent diffusion coefficient to identifying MGMT promoter methylation status early in glioblastoma: importance of analytical method. J Med Radiat Sci 62:92–98, 2015
11. Drabycz S, Roldán G, de Robles P, Adler D, McIntyre JB, Magliocco AM, Cairncross JG, Mitchell JR: An analysis of image texture, tumor location, and MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma using magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage 49:1398–1405, 2010
12. Levner I, Drabycz S, Roldan G, De Robles P, Gregory Cairncross J, Mitchell R: Predicting MGMT Methylation Status of Glioblastomas from MRI Texture. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2009;12(Pt 2):522–530
13. Moon W-J, Choi JW, Roh HG, Lim SD, Koh Y-C: Imaging parameters of high grade gliomas in relation to the MGMT promoter methylation status: the CT, diffusion tensor imaging, and perfusion MR imaging. Neuroradiology 54:555–563, 2012
14. Ahn SS, Shin N-Y, Chang JH, Kim SH, Kim EH, Kim DW, Lee S-K: Prediction of methylguanine methyltransferase promoter methylation in glioblastoma using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance and diffusion tensor imaging. J Neurosurg 121:367–373, 2014
15. Gupta A, Omuro AMP, Shah AD, Graber JJ, Shi W, Zhang Z, Young RJ: Continuing the search for MR imaging biomarkers for MGMT promoter methylation status: conventional and perfusion MRI revisited. Neuroradiology 54:641–643, 2012
16. Kanas VG, Zacharaki EI, Thomas GA, Zinn PO, Megalooikonomou V, Colen RR: Learning MRI-based classification models for MGMT methylation status prediction in glioblastoma. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 140:249–257, 2017
17. Korfiatis P, Kline TL, Coufalova L, Lachance DH, Parney IF, Carter RE, Buckner JC, Erickson BJ: MRI texture features as biomarkers to predict MGMT methylation status in glioblastomas. Med Phys 43:2835, 2016
18. Eckel-Passow JE, Lachance DH, Molinaro AM et al.: Glioma groups based on 1p/19q, IDH, and TERT promoter mutations in tumors. N Engl J Med 372:2499–2508, 2015
19. Greenspan H, van Ginneken B, Summers RM: Guest editorial deep learning in medical imaging: overview and future promise of an exciting new technique. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35:1153–1159, 2016
20. Anthimopoulos M, Christodoulidis S, Ebner L, Christe A, Mougiakakou S: Lung pattern classification for interstitial lung diseases using a deep convolutional neural network. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35:1207–1216, 2016
21. Dalmış MU, Litjens G, Holland K, Setio A, Mann R, Karssemeijer N, Gubern-Mérida A: Using deep learning to segment breast and fibroglandular tissue in MRI volumes. Med Phys 44:533–546, 2017
22. Dhungel N, Carneiro G, Bradley AP: A deep learning approach for the analysis of masses in mammograms with minimal user intervention. Med Image Anal 37:114–128, 2017
23. Spampinato C, Palazzo S, Giordano D, Aldinucci M, Leonardi R: Deep learning for automated skeletal bone age assessment in X-ray images. Med Image Anal 36:41–51, 2017
24. Yan Z, Zhan Y, Zhang S, Metaxas D, Zhou XS: Multi-Instance Multi-Stage Deep Learning for Medical Image Recognition. IEEE Transactions On Medical Imaging. doi:10.1109/TMI.2016.2524985
25. Rajkomar A, Lingam S, Taylor AG, Blum M, Mongan J: High-throughput classification of radiographs using deep convolutional neural networks. J Digit Imaging 30:95–101, 2017
26. Korfiatis PD, Kline TL, Blezek DJ, Langer SG, Ryan WJ, Erickson BJ: MIRMAID: a content management system for medical image analysis research. Radiographics 35:1461–1468, 2015
27. Tustison NJ, Avants BB, Cook PA, Zheng Y, Egan A, Yushkevich PA, Gee JC: N4ITK: improved N3 bias correction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 29:1310–1320, 2010
28. Juntu J, Sijbers J, Dyck D, Gielen J: Bias Field Correction for MRI Images. In: Advances in Soft Computing. Springer. pp 543–551
29. He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J: Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. arXiv [cs.CV]. 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03385
30. He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J: Identity Mappings in Deep Residual Networks. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2016, pp 630–645. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-46493-0_38
31. He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Las Vegas. 2016, pp 770–778
32. He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J: Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classification. 2015 I.E. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2015. doi: 10.1109/iccv.2015.123
33. loffe S, Szegedy C: Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift. arXiv [cs.LG]. 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03167
34. Dietterich TG: Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Comput 10:1895–1923, 1998 1998
35. Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenze, Vol. 8 (1936), pp. 3–62 Key: citeulike:1778138
36. Veit A, Wilber M, Belongie S: Residual Networks Behave Like Ensembles of Relatively Shallow Networks. arXiv [cs.CV]. 2016. https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.06431
37. Nyúl LG, Udupa JK: On standardizing the MR image intensity scale. Magn Reson Med 42:1072–1081, 1999