Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 4/2021

01-04-2021 | Glioblastoma | Neuro

Radiomics may increase the prognostic value for survival in glioblastoma patients when combined with conventional clinical and genetic prognostic models

Authors: Yangsean Choi, Yoonho Nam, Jinhee Jang, Na-Young Shin, Youn Soo Lee, Kook-Jin Ahn, Bum-soo Kim, Jae-Sung Park, Sin-soo Jeon, Yong Gil Hong

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 4/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the additional prognostic value of multiparametric MR-based radiomics in patients with glioblastoma when combined with conventional clinical and genetic prognostic factors.

Methods

In this single-center study, patients diagnosed with glioblastoma between October 2007 and December 2019 were retrospectively screened and grouped into training and test sets with a 7:3 distribution. Segmentations of glioblastoma using multiparametric MRI were performed automatically via a convolutional-neural network. Prognostic factors in the clinical model included age, sex, type of surgery/post-operative treatment, and tumor location; those in the genetic model included statuses of isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 mutation and O-6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase promoter methylation. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Integrated time-dependent area under the curve (iAUC) for survival was calculated and compared between prognostic models via the bootstrapping method (performances were validated with prediction error curves).

Results

Overall, 120 patients were included (training set, 85; test set, 35). The mean OS and PFS were 25.5 and 18.6 months, respectively. The prognostic performances of multivariate models improved when radiomics was added to the clinical model (iAUC: OS, 0.62 to 0.73; PFS, 0.58 to 0.66), genetic model (iAUC: OS, 0.59 to 0.67; PFS, 0.59 to 0.65), and combined model (iAUC: OS, 0.65 to 0.73; PFS, 0.62 to 0.67). In the test set, the combined model (clinical, genetic, and radiomics) demonstrated robust validation for risk prediction of OS and PFS.

Conclusions

Radiomics increased the prognostic value when combined with conventional clinical and genetic prognostic models for OS and PFS in glioblastoma patients.

Key Points

• CNN-based automatic segmentation of glioblastoma on multiparametric MRI was useful in extracting radiomic features.
• Patients with glioblastoma with high-risk radiomics scores had poor overall survival (hazards ratio 8.33, p < 0.001) and progression-free survival (hazards ratio 3.76, p < 0.001).
• MR-based radiomics improved the survival prediction when combined with clinical and genetic factors (overall and progression-free survival iAUC from 0.65 to 0.73 and 0.62 to 0.67, respectively; both p < 0.001).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Fulop J et al (2015) CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2008-2012. Neuro Oncol 17:iv1–iv62CrossRef Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Fulop J et al (2015) CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2008-2012. Neuro Oncol 17:iv1–iv62CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP et al (2009) Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol 10:459–466CrossRef Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP et al (2009) Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol 10:459–466CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Krex D, Klink B, Hartmann C et al (2007) Long-term survival with glioblastoma multiforme. Brain 130:2596–2606CrossRef Krex D, Klink B, Hartmann C et al (2007) Long-term survival with glioblastoma multiforme. Brain 130:2596–2606CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Dubbink H, Taal W, van Marion R et al (2009) IDH1 mutations in low-grade astrocytomas predict survival but not response to temozolomide. Neurology 73:1792–1795CrossRef Dubbink H, Taal W, van Marion R et al (2009) IDH1 mutations in low-grade astrocytomas predict survival but not response to temozolomide. Neurology 73:1792–1795CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Carrillo J, Lai A, Nghiemphu P et al (2012) Relationship between tumor enhancement, edema, IDH1 mutational status, MGMT promoter methylation, and survival in glioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:1349–1355CrossRef Carrillo J, Lai A, Nghiemphu P et al (2012) Relationship between tumor enhancement, edema, IDH1 mutational status, MGMT promoter methylation, and survival in glioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:1349–1355CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Pope WB, Sayre J, Perlina A, Villablanca JP, Mischel PS, Cloughesy TF (2005) MR imaging correlates of survival in patients with high-grade gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:2466–2474PubMed Pope WB, Sayre J, Perlina A, Villablanca JP, Mischel PS, Cloughesy TF (2005) MR imaging correlates of survival in patients with high-grade gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:2466–2474PubMed
7.
go back to reference Gutman DA, Cooper LA, Hwang SN et al (2013) MR imaging predictors of molecular profile and survival: multi-institutional study of the TCGA glioblastoma data set. Radiology 267:560–569CrossRef Gutman DA, Cooper LA, Hwang SN et al (2013) MR imaging predictors of molecular profile and survival: multi-institutional study of the TCGA glioblastoma data set. Radiology 267:560–569CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Bae S, Choi YS, Ahn SS et al (2018) Radiomic MRI phenotyping of glioblastoma: improving survival prediction. Radiology 289:797–806CrossRef Bae S, Choi YS, Ahn SS et al (2018) Radiomic MRI phenotyping of glioblastoma: improving survival prediction. Radiology 289:797–806CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kickingereder P, Burth S, Wick A et al (2016) Radiomic profiling of glioblastoma: identifying an imaging predictor of patient survival with improved performance over established clinical and radiologic risk models. Radiology 280:880–889CrossRef Kickingereder P, Burth S, Wick A et al (2016) Radiomic profiling of glioblastoma: identifying an imaging predictor of patient survival with improved performance over established clinical and radiologic risk models. Radiology 280:880–889CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Prasanna P, Patel J, Partovi S, Madabhushi A, Tiwari P (2017) Radiomic features from the peritumoral brain parenchyma on treatment-naive multi-parametric MR imaging predict long versus short-term survival in glioblastoma multiforme: preliminary findings. Eur Radiol 27:4188–4197CrossRef Prasanna P, Patel J, Partovi S, Madabhushi A, Tiwari P (2017) Radiomic features from the peritumoral brain parenchyma on treatment-naive multi-parametric MR imaging predict long versus short-term survival in glioblastoma multiforme: preliminary findings. Eur Radiol 27:4188–4197CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577CrossRef Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ingrisch M, Schneider MJ, Nörenberg D et al (2017) Radiomic analysis reveals prognostic information in T1-weighted baseline magnetic resonance imaging in patients with glioblastoma. Invest Radiol 52:360–366CrossRef Ingrisch M, Schneider MJ, Nörenberg D et al (2017) Radiomic analysis reveals prognostic information in T1-weighted baseline magnetic resonance imaging in patients with glioblastoma. Invest Radiol 52:360–366CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Kickingereder P, Neuberger U, Bonekamp D et al (2018) Radiomic subtyping improves disease stratification beyond key molecular, clinical, and standard imaging characteristics in patients with glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 20:848–857CrossRef Kickingereder P, Neuberger U, Bonekamp D et al (2018) Radiomic subtyping improves disease stratification beyond key molecular, clinical, and standard imaging characteristics in patients with glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 20:848–857CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Bauer S, Wiest R, Nolte L-P, Reyes M (2013) A survey of MRI-based medical image analysis for brain tumor studies. Phys Med Biol 58:R97CrossRef Bauer S, Wiest R, Nolte L-P, Reyes M (2013) A survey of MRI-based medical image analysis for brain tumor studies. Phys Med Biol 58:R97CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Porz N, Bauer S, Pica A et al (2014) Multi-modal glioblastoma segmentation: man versus machine. PLoS One 9:e96873CrossRef Porz N, Bauer S, Pica A et al (2014) Multi-modal glioblastoma segmentation: man versus machine. PLoS One 9:e96873CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kamnitsas K, Ledig C, Newcombe VF et al (2017) Efficient multi-scale 3D CNN with fully connected CRF for accurate brain lesion segmentation. Med Image Anal 36:61–78CrossRef Kamnitsas K, Ledig C, Newcombe VF et al (2017) Efficient multi-scale 3D CNN with fully connected CRF for accurate brain lesion segmentation. Med Image Anal 36:61–78CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Pereira S, Pinto A, Alves V, Silva CA (2016) Brain tumor segmentation using convolutional neural networks in MRI images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35:1240–1251CrossRef Pereira S, Pinto A, Alves V, Silva CA (2016) Brain tumor segmentation using convolutional neural networks in MRI images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35:1240–1251CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Bakas S, Reyes M, Jakab A et al (2018) Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the BRATS challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:181102629 Bakas S, Reyes M, Jakab A et al (2018) Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the BRATS challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:181102629
19.
go back to reference Wang F, Jiang R, Zheng L, Biswal B, Meng C (2019) Brain-wise tumor segmentation and patient overall survival prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:190912901 Wang F, Jiang R, Zheng L, Biswal B, Meng C (2019) Brain-wise tumor segmentation and patient overall survival prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:190912901
20.
go back to reference Lamborn KR, Chang SM, Prados MD (2004) Prognostic factors for survival of patients with glioblastoma: recursive partitioning analysis. Neuro Oncol 6:227–235CrossRef Lamborn KR, Chang SM, Prados MD (2004) Prognostic factors for survival of patients with glioblastoma: recursive partitioning analysis. Neuro Oncol 6:227–235CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Pessina F, Navarria P, Cozzi L et al (2017) Maximize surgical resection beyond contrast-enhancing boundaries in newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: is it useful and safe? A single institution retrospective experience. J Neurooncol 135:129–139CrossRef Pessina F, Navarria P, Cozzi L et al (2017) Maximize surgical resection beyond contrast-enhancing boundaries in newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: is it useful and safe? A single institution retrospective experience. J Neurooncol 135:129–139CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Johnson H, Harris G, Williams K (2007) BRAINSFit: mutual information rigid registrations of whole-brain 3D images, using the insight toolkit. Insight J 57:1–10 Johnson H, Harris G, Williams K (2007) BRAINSFit: mutual information rigid registrations of whole-brain 3D images, using the insight toolkit. Insight J 57:1–10
24.
go back to reference Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J et al (2012) 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging 30:1323–1341CrossRef Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J et al (2012) 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging 30:1323–1341CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Shinohara RT, Sweeney EM, Goldsmith J et al (2014) Statistical normalization techniques for magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage Clin 6:9–19CrossRef Shinohara RT, Sweeney EM, Goldsmith J et al (2014) Statistical normalization techniques for magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage Clin 6:9–19CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Menze BH, Jakab A, Bauer S et al (2014) The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Trans Med Imaging 34:1993–2024CrossRef Menze BH, Jakab A, Bauer S et al (2014) The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Trans Med Imaging 34:1993–2024CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Van Griethuysen JJ, Fedorov A, Parmar C et al (2017) Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res 77:e104–e107PubMedPubMedCentral Van Griethuysen JJ, Fedorov A, Parmar C et al (2017) Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res 77:e104–e107PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Contal C, O’Quigley J (1999) An application of changepoint methods in studying the effect of age on survival in breast cancer. Comput Stat Data Anal 30:253–270CrossRef Contal C, O’Quigley J (1999) An application of changepoint methods in studying the effect of age on survival in breast cancer. Comput Stat Data Anal 30:253–270CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Sauerbrei W, Royston P, Binder H (2007) Selection of important variables and determination of functional form for continuous predictors in multivariable model building. Stat Med 26:5512–5528CrossRef Sauerbrei W, Royston P, Binder H (2007) Selection of important variables and determination of functional form for continuous predictors in multivariable model building. Stat Med 26:5512–5528CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Zhang B, Tian J, Dong D et al (2017) Radiomics features of multiparametric MRI as novel prognostic factors in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 23:4259–4269CrossRef Zhang B, Tian J, Dong D et al (2017) Radiomics features of multiparametric MRI as novel prognostic factors in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 23:4259–4269CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Blanche P, Dartigues J-F, Jacqmin-Gadda H (2013) Estimating and comparing time-dependent areas under receiver operating characteristic curves for censored event times with competing risks. Stat Med 32:5381–5397CrossRef Blanche P, Dartigues J-F, Jacqmin-Gadda H (2013) Estimating and comparing time-dependent areas under receiver operating characteristic curves for censored event times with competing risks. Stat Med 32:5381–5397CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Thakkar JP, Dolecek TA, Horbinski C et al (2014) Epidemiologic and molecular prognostic review of glioblastoma. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomarkers Prev 23:1985–1996CrossRef Thakkar JP, Dolecek TA, Horbinski C et al (2014) Epidemiologic and molecular prognostic review of glioblastoma. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomarkers Prev 23:1985–1996CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Radiomics may increase the prognostic value for survival in glioblastoma patients when combined with conventional clinical and genetic prognostic models
Authors
Yangsean Choi
Yoonho Nam
Jinhee Jang
Na-Young Shin
Youn Soo Lee
Kook-Jin Ahn
Bum-soo Kim
Jae-Sung Park
Sin-soo Jeon
Yong Gil Hong
Publication date
01-04-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 4/2021
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07335-1

Other articles of this Issue 4/2021

European Radiology 4/2021 Go to the issue