Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery
Published in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 5/2013

01-09-2013 | Original Article

Automated differentiation of glioblastomas from intracranial metastases using 3T MR spectroscopic and perfusion data

Authors: Evangelia Tsolaki, Patricia Svolos, Evanthia Kousi, Eftychia Kapsalaki, Konstantinos Fountas, Kyriaki Theodorou, Ioannis Tsougos

Published in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery | Issue 5/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose   Differentiation of glioblastomas from metastases is clinical important, but may be difficult even for expert observers. To investigate the contribution of machine learning algorithms in the differentiation of glioblastomas multiforme (GB) from metastases, we developed and tested a pattern recognition system based on 3T magnetic resonance (MR) data.
Materials and Methods   Single and multi-voxel proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) and dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI scans were performed on 49 patients with solitary brain tumors (35 glioblastoma multiforme and 14 metastases). Metabolic (NAA/Cr, Cho/Cr, (Lip \(+\) Lac)/Cr) and perfusion (rCBV) parameters were measured in both intratumoral and peritumoral regions. The statistical significance of these parameters was evaluated. For the classification procedure, three datasets were created to find the optimum combination of parameters that provides maximum differentiation. Three machine learning methods were utilized: Naïve-Bayes, Support Vector Machine (SVM) and \(k\)-nearest neighbor (KNN). The discrimination ability of each classifier was evaluated with quantitative performance metrics.
Results   Glioblastoma and metastases were differentiable only in the peritumoral region of these lesions (\(p<0.05\)). SVM achieved the highest overall performance (accuracy 98 %) for both the intratumoral and peritumoral areas. Naïve-Bayes and KNN presented greater variations in performance. The proper selection of datasets plays a very significant role as they are closely correlated to the underlying pathophysiology.
Conclusion   The application of pattern recognition techniques using 3T MR-based perfusion and metabolic features may provide incremental diagnostic value in the differentiation of common intraaxial brain tumors, such as glioblastoma versus metastasis.
Literature
1.
Chiang IC et al (2004) Distinction between high-grade gliomas and solitary metastases using peritumoral 3-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion, and perfusion imaging. Neuroradiology 46(8):619–627PubMedCrossRef
2.
Liu X et al (2011) MR diffusion tensor and perfusion-weighted imaging in preoperative grading of supratentorial nonenhancing gliomas. Neurol Oncol 13(4):447–455
3.
4.
Toh CH et al (2008) Primary cerebral lymphoma and glioblastoma multiforme: differences in diffusion characteristics evaluated with diffusion tensor imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 29(3):471–475PubMedCrossRef
5.
Law M et al (2002) High-grade gliomas and solitary metastases: differentiation by using perfusion and proton spectroscopic MR imaging. Radiology 222(3):715–721PubMedCrossRef
6.
Howe FA et al (2003) Metabolic profiles of human brain tumors using quantitative in vivo 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med 49(2):223–232PubMedCrossRef
7.
Fan G, Sun B, Wu Z, Guo Q, Guo Y (2004) In vivo single-voxel proton MR spectroscopy in the differentiation of high-grade gliomas and solitary metastases. Clin Radiol 59(1):77–85PubMedCrossRef
8.
Al-Okaili RN et al (2007) Intraaxial brainmasses MR imaging- based diagnostic strategy-initial experience. Radiology 243(2): 539–550
9.
Weber MA et al (2006) Diagnostic performance of spectroscopic and perfusion MRI for distinction of brain tumors. Neurology 66(12):1899.S–1906.S
10.
Chawla et al (2010) Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in differentiating glioblastomas from primary cerebral lymphomas and brain metastases. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34(6):836–841
11.
Lee EJ et al (2011) Diagnostic value of peritumoral minimum apparent diffusion coefficient for differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme from solitary metastatic lesions. Am J Roentgenol 196(1):71–76
12.
Tsougos I et al (2012) Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme from metastatic brain tumor using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion and perfusion metrics at 3 T. Cancer Imaging 12:1–14. doi:10.​1102/​1470-7330.​2012.​0038 CrossRef
13.
García-Gómez JM (2011) Brain tumor classification using magnetic resonance spectroscopy. In: Tumors of the central nervous. System, vol 3. Springer, pp 5–19
14.
15.
Tate AR et al (2006) Development of a decision support system for diagnosis and grading of brain tumours using in vivo magnetic resonance single voxel spectra. Nucl Magn Reson Biomed 19(4):411–434
16.
17.
Gonzalez Velez H et al (2009) HealthAgents: distributed multi-agent brain tumor diagnosis and prognosis. Appl Intell 30(3): 191–202
18.
Arús C et al (2006) On the design of a web-based decision support system for brain tumour diagnosis using distributed agents. In: IAT Workshops, pp 208–211
19.
Li G, Yang J, Ye C, Geng D (2006) Degree prediction of malignancy in brain glioma using support vector machines. Comput Biol Med 36(3):313–325PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zacharaki EI, Kanas VG, Davatzikos C (2011) Investigating machine learning techniques for MRI-based classification of brain neoplasms. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 6(6):821–828PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zacharaki EI et al (2009) Classification of brain tumor type and grade using MRI texture and shape in a machine learning scheme. Magn Reson Med 62(6):1609–1618PubMedCrossRef
22.
Devos A et al (2005) The use of multivariate MR imaging intensities versus metabolic data from MR spectroscopic imaging for brain tumour classification. J Magn Reson 173(2):218–228PubMedCrossRef
23.
Garcia-Gomez JM et al (2009) Multiproject-multicenter evaluation of automatic brain tumor classification by magnetic resonance spectroscopy. MAGMA 22(1):5–18PubMedCrossRef
24.
Blanchet L et al (2011) Discrimination between metastasis and glioblastoma multiforme based on morphometric analysis of MR images. Am J Neuroradiol 32(1):67–73PubMed
25.
Dimou I et al (2011) Brain lesion classification using 3T MRS spectra and paired SVM kernels. Biomed Signal Process Control 6(3):314–320CrossRef
26.
Kousi E et al (2012) Spectroscopic evaluation of Glioma grading at 3T: the combined role of short and long TE. Sci World J 2012:546171
27.
28.
Zhang H (2008) Perfusion MR imaging for differentiation of benign and malignant meningiomas. Neuroradiology 50(6):525–530
29.
Boxerman JL, Schmainda KM, Weisskoff RM (2006) Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with Glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. Am J Neuroradiol 27:859–867PubMed
30.
Knopp EA, Cha S, Johnson G, Mazumdar A, Golfinos JG, Zagzag D et al (1999) Glial neoplasms: dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 211(3):791–798
31.
Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20:273–297
32.
33.
John GH, Langley P (1995) Estimating continuous distributions in Bayesian classifiers. In: (UAI’95) Philippe B, Steve H (eds) Proceedings of the eleventh conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, pp 338–345
34.
Kazmierska J, Malicki J (2008) Application of the Naïve Bayesian Classifier to optimize treatment decisions. Radiother Oncol 86(2):211–216PubMedCrossRef
35.
Cover TM, Hart PE (1967) Nearest neighbor pattern classification. Inst Electr Electron Eng Trans Inf Theory 13:21–27CrossRef
36.
Wang J, Neskovic P, Cooper LN (2007) Improving nearest neighbor rule with a simple adaptive distance measure. Pattern Recognit Lett 28(2):207–213CrossRef
37.
Lukas L et al (2004) Brain tumor classification based on long echo proton MRS signal. Artif Intell Med 31(1):73–89
38.
Qi H (2002) Feature selection and kNN fusion in molecular classification of multiple tumor types. In: Proceedings of the mathematics and engineering techniques in medicine and biological sciences. Las Vegas, Nevada
39.
Li S, Harner EJ, Adjeroh DA (2011) Random KNN feature selection-a fast and stable alternative to random forest. BMC Bioinform 12:450
40.
Wu X et al (2008) Top 10 algorithms in data mining. Knowl Inf Syst 14(1):1–37CrossRef
41.
Opstad KS et al (2004) Differentiation of metastases from high-grade gliomas using short echo time 1H spectroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging 20(2):187–192PubMedCrossRef
42.
Ben-Hur A, Weston J (2010) A user’s guide to support vector machines. In: Methods in molecular biology. Data Mining Techniques for the Life Sciences, vol 609. Springer, Berlin, pp 223–239
43.
Domingos P, Pazzani M (1997) On the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier under zero-one loss. Mach Learn 29(2–3): 103–130
44.
Friedman JH, Fayyad U (1997) On bias, variance, 0/1-loss, and the curse-of-dimensionality. Data Min Knowl Discov 1(1):55–77CrossRef
45.
Frank E, Trigg L, Holmes G, Witten IH (2000) Technical note: Naive Bayes for regression. Mach Learn 41(1):5–25CrossRef
46.
Williams N, Zander S, Armitage G (2006) A preliminary performance comparison of five machine learning algorithms for practical IP traffic flow classification. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 36(5)
47.
Cunningham P, Delany SJ (2007) k-Nearest Neighbour Classifiers. Technical Report UCD-CSI-2007-4
Metadata
Title
Automated differentiation of glioblastomas from intracranial metastases using 3T MR spectroscopic and perfusion data
Authors
Evangelia Tsolaki
Patricia Svolos
Evanthia Kousi
Eftychia Kapsalaki
Konstantinos Fountas
Kyriaki Theodorou
Ioannis Tsougos
Publication date
01-09-2013
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery / Issue 5/2013
Print ISSN: 1861-6410
Electronic ISSN: 1861-6429
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-012-0808-0

Other articles of this Issue 5/2013

International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 5/2013 Go to the issue

Original Article

Ultrasound-guided facet joint injection training using Perk Tutor

Original Article

A computerized MRI biomarker quantification scheme for a canine model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Original Article

Computer-aided nidus segmentation and angiographic characterization of arteriovenous malformations

Original Article

An in vivo subject-specific 3D functional knee joint model using combined MR imaging

Original Article

Performance evaluation of a C-Arm CT perfusion phantom

Original Article

Percutaneous lung biopsy: comparison between an augmented reality CT navigation system and standard CT-guided technique