Search

Automated tumor segmentation tools for glioblastoma show promising performance. To apply these tools for automated response assessment, longitudinal segmentation, and tumor measurement, consistency is critical. This study aimed to determine whether BraTumIA and HD-GLIO are suited for this task. We evaluated two segmentation tools with respect to automated response assessment on the single-center retrospective LUMIERE dataset with 80 patients and a total of 502 post-operative time points. Volumetry and automated bi-dimensional measurements were compared with expert measurements following the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) guidelines. The longitudinal trend agreement between the expert and methods was evaluated, and the RANO progression thresholds were tested against the expert-derived time-to-progression (TTP). The TTP and overall survival (OS) correlation was used to check the progression thresholds. We evaluated the automated detection and influence of non-measurable lesions. The tumor volume trend agreement calculated between segmentation volumes and the expert bi-dimensional measurements was high (HD-GLIO: 81.1%, BraTumIA: 79.7%). BraTumIA achieved the closest match to the expert TTP using the recommended RANO progression threshold. HD-GLIO-derived tumor volumes reached the highest correlation between TTP and OS (0.55). Both tools failed at an accurate lesion count across time. Manual false-positive removal and restricting to a maximum number of measurable lesions had no beneficial effect. Expert supervision and manual corrections are still necessary when applying the tested automated segmentation tools for automated response assessment. The longitudinal consistency of current segmentation tools needs further improvement. Validation of volumetric and bi-dimensional progression thresholds with multi-center studies is required to move toward volumetry-based response assessment.

Abstract Publicly available Glioblastoma (GBM) datasets predominantly include pre-operative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) or contain few follow-up images for each patient. Access to fully longitudinal datasets is critical to advance the refinement of treatment response assessment. We release a single-center longitudinal GBM MRI dataset with expert ratings of selected follow-up studies according to the response assessment in neuro-oncology criteria (RANO). The expert rating includes details about the rationale of the ratings. For a subset of patients, we provide pathology information regarding methylation of the O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter status and isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1), as well as the overall survival time. The data includes T1-weighted pre- and post-contrast, T2-weighted, and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRI. Segmentations from state-of-the-art automated segmentation tools, as well as radiomic features, complement the data. Possible applications of this dataset are radiomics research, the development and validation of automated segmentation methods, and studies on response assessment. This collection includes MRI data of 91 GBM patients with a total of 638 study dates and 2487 images.

Abstract Background This study aims to identify robust radiomic features for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), assess feature selection and machine learning methods for overall survival classification of Glioblastoma multiforme patients, and to robustify models trained on single-center data when applied to multi-center data. Methods Tumor regions were automatically segmented on MRI data, and 8327 radiomic features extracted from these regions. Single-center data was perturbed to assess radiomic feature robustness, with over 16 million tests of typical perturbations. Robust features were selected based on the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient to measure agreement across perturbations. Feature selectors and machine learning methods were compared to classify overall survival. Models trained on single-center data (63 patients) were tested on multi-center data (76 patients). Priors using feature robustness and clinical knowledge were evaluated. Results We observed a very large performance drop when applying models trained on single-center on unseen multi-center data, e.g. a decrease of the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.56 for the overall survival classification boundary at 1 year. By using robust features alongside priors for two overall survival classes, the AUC drop could be reduced by 21.2%. In contrast, sensitivity was 12.19% lower when applying a prior. Conclusions Our experiments show that it is possible to attain improved levels of robustness and accuracy when models need to be applied to unseen multi-center data. The performance on multi-center data of models trained on single-center data can be increased by using robust features and introducing prior knowledge. For successful model robustification, tailoring perturbations for robustness testing to the target dataset is key.

Abstract Background Automated brain tumor segmentation methods are computational algorithms that yield tumor delineation from, in this case, multimodal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We present an automated segmentation method and its results for resection cavity (RC) in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients using deep learning (DL) technologies. Methods Post-operative, T1w with and without contrast, T2w and fluid attenuated inversion recovery MRI studies of 30 GBM patients were included. Three radiation oncologists manually delineated the RC to obtain a reference segmentation. We developed a DL cavity segmentation method, which utilizes all four MRI sequences and the reference segmentation to learn to perform RC delineations. We evaluated the segmentation method in terms of Dice coefficient (DC) and estimated volume measurements. Results Median DC of the three radiation oncologist were 0.85 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.08), 0.84 (IQR: 0.07), and 0.86 (IQR: 0.07). The results of the automatic segmentation compared to the three different raters were 0.83 (IQR: 0.14), 0.81 (IQR: 0.12), and 0.81 (IQR: 0.13) which was significantly lower compared to the DC among raters (chi-square = 11.63, p = 0.04). We did not detect a statistically significant difference of the measured RC volumes for the different raters and the automated method (Kruskal-Wallis test: chi-square = 1.46, p = 0.69). The main sources of error were due to signal inhomogeneity and similar intensity patterns between cavity and brain tissues. Conclusions The proposed DL approach yields promising results for automated RC segmentation in this proof of concept study. Compared to human experts, the DC are still subpar.

ObjectivesTo identify qualitative VASARI (Visually AcceSIble Rembrandt Images) Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging features for differentiation of glioblastoma (GBM) and brain metastasis (BM) of different primary tumors.Materials and MethodsT1-weighted pre- and post-contrast, T2-weighted, and T2-weighted, fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MR images of a total of 239 lesions from 109 patients with either GBM or BM (breast cancer, non-small cell (NSCLC) adenocarcinoma, NSCLC squamous cell carcinoma, small-cell lung cancer (SCLC)) were included. A set of adapted, qualitative VASARI MR features describing tumor appearance and location was scored (binary; 1 = presence of feature, 0 = absence of feature). Exploratory data analysis was performed on binary scores using a combination of descriptive statistics (proportions with 95% binomial confidence intervals), unsupervised methods and supervised methods including multivariate feature ranking using either repeated fitting or recursive feature elimination with Support Vector Machines (SVMs).ResultsGBMs were found to involve all lobes of the cerebrum with a fronto-occipital gradient, often affected the corpus callosum (32.4%, 95% CI 19.1–49.2), and showed a strong preference for the right hemisphere (79.4%, 95% CI 63.2–89.7). BMs occurred most frequently in the frontal lobe (35.1%, 95% CI 28.9–41.9) and cerebellum (28.3%, 95% CI 22.6–34.8). The appearance of GBMs was characterized by preference for well-defined non-enhancing tumor margin (100%, 89.8–100), ependymal extension (52.9%, 36.7–68.5) and substantially less enhancing foci than BMs (44.1%, 28.9–60.6 vs. 75.1%, 68.8–80.5). Unsupervised and supervised analyses showed that GBMs are distinctively different from BMs and that this difference is driven by definition of non-enhancing tumor margin, ependymal extension and features describing laterality. Differentiation of histological subtypes of BMs was driven by the presence of well-defined enhancing and non-enhancing tumor margins and localization in the vision center. SVM models with optimal hyperparameters led to weighted F1-score of 0.865 for differentiation of GBMs from BMs and weighted F1-score of 0.326 for differentiation of BM subtypes.ConclusionVASARI MR imaging features related to definition of non-enhancing margin, ependymal extension, and tumor localization may serve as potential imaging biomarkers to differentiate GBMs from BMs.

It is a general assumption in deep learning that more training data leads to better performance, and that models will learn to generalize well across heterogeneous input data as long as that variety is represented in the training set. Segmentation of brain tumors is a well-investigated topic in medical image computing, owing primarily to the availability of a large publicly-available dataset arising from the long-running yearly Multimodal Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenge. Research efforts and publications addressing this dataset focus predominantly on technical improvements of model architectures and less on properties of the underlying data. Using the dataset and the method ranked third in the BraTS 2018 challenge, we performed experiments to examine the impact of tumor type on segmentation performance. We propose to stratify the training dataset into high-grade glioma (HGG) and low-grade glioma (LGG) subjects and train two separate models. Although we observed only minor gains in overall mean dice scores by this stratification, examining case-wise rankings of individual subjects revealed statistically significant improvements. Compared to a baseline model trained on both HGG and LGG cases, two separately trained models led to better performance in 64.9% of cases (p < 0.0001) for the tumor core. An analysis of subjects which did not profit from stratified training revealed that cases were missegmented which had poor image quality, or which presented clinically particularly challenging cases (e.g., underrepresented subtypes such as IDH1-mutant tumors), underlining the importance of such latent variables in the context of tumor segmentation. In summary, we found that segmentation models trained on the BraTS 2018 dataset, stratified according to tumor type, lead to a significant increase in segmentation performance. Furthermore, we demonstrated that this gain in segmentation performance is evident in the case-wise ranking of individual subjects but not in summary statistics. We conclude that it may be useful to consider the segmentation of brain tumors of different types or grades as separate tasks, rather than developing one tool to segment them all. Consequently, making this information available for the test data should be considered, potentially leading to a more clinically relevant BraTS competition.

Comparison of a fully-automated segmentation method that uses compartmental volume information to a semi-automatic user-guided and FDA-approved segmentation technique.Nineteen patients with a recently diagnosed and histologically confirmed glioblastoma (GBM) were included and MR images were acquired with a 1.5 T MR scanner. Manual segmentation for volumetric analyses was performed using the open source software 3D Slicer version 4.2.2.3 (www.slicer.org). Semi-automatic segmentation was done by four independent neurosurgeons and neuroradiologists using the computer-assisted segmentation tool SmartBrush® (referred to as SB), a semi-automatic user-guided and FDA-approved tumor-outlining program that uses contour expansion. Fully automatic segmentations were performed with the Brain Tumor Image Analysis (BraTumIA, referred to as BT) software. We compared manual (ground truth, referred to as GT), computer-assisted (SB) and fully-automated (BT) segmentations with regard to: (1) products of two maximum diameters for 2D measurements, (2) the Dice coefficient, (3) the positive predictive value, (4) the sensitivity and (5) the volume error.Segmentations by the four expert raters resulted in a mean Dice coefficient between 0.72 and 0.77 using SB. BT achieved a mean Dice coefficient of 0.68. Significant differences were found for intermodal (BT vs. SB) and for intramodal (four SB expert raters) performances. The BT and SB segmentations of the contrast-enhancing volumes achieved a high correlation with the GT. Pearson correlation was 0.8 for BT; however, there were a few discrepancies between raters (BT and SB 1 only). Additional non-enhancing tumor tissue extending the SB volumes was found with BT in 16/19 cases. The clinically motivated sum of products of diameters measure (SPD) revealed neither significant intermodal nor intramodal variations. The analysis time for the four expert raters was faster (1 minute and 47 seconds to 3 minutes and 39 seconds) than with BT (5 minutes).BT and SB provide comparable segmentation results in a clinical setting. SB provided similar SPD measures to BT and GT, but differed in the volume analysis in one of the four clinical raters. A major strength of BT may its independence from human interactions, it can thus be employed to handle large datasets and to associate tumor volumes with clinical and/or molecular datasets ("-omics") as well as for clinical analyses of brain tumor compartment volumes as baseline outcome parameters. Due to its multi-compartment segmentation it may provide information about GBM subcompartment compositions that may be subjected to clinical studies to investigate the delineation of the target volumes for adjuvant therapies in the future.