Search

Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) is the standard of care treatment for brain metastases (METS) today. Nevertheless, there is limited understanding of how posttreatment lesional volumetric changes may assist prediction of lesional outcome. This is partly due to the paucity of volumetric segmentation tools. Edema alone can cause significant clinical symptoms and, therefore, needs independent study along with standard measurements of contrast-enhancing tumors. In this study, we aimed to compare volumetric changes of edema to RANO-BM-based measurements of contrast-enhancing lesion size. Patients with NSCLC METS ≥10 mm on post-contrast T1-weighted image and treated with SRT had measurements for up to seven follow-up scans using a PACS-integrated tool segmenting the peritumoral FLAIR hyperintense volume. Two-dimensional contrast-enhancing and volumetric edema changes were compared by creating treatment response curves. Fifty NSCLC METS were included in the study. The initial median peritumoral edema volume post-SRT relative to pre-SRT baseline was 37% (IQR 8-114%). Most of the lesions with edema volume reduction post-SRT experienced no increase in edema during the study. In over 50% of METS, the pattern of edema volume change was different than the pattern of contrast-enhancing lesion change at different timepoints, which was defined as incongruent. Lesions demonstrating incongruence at the first follow-up were more likely to progress subsequently. Therefore, edema assessment of METS post-SRT provides critical additional information to RANO-BM.

Glioma and brain metastasis can be difficult to distinguish on conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to the similarity of imaging features in specific clinical circumstances. Multiple studies have investigated the use of machine learning (ML) models for non-invasive differentiation of glioma from brain metastasis. Many of the studies report promising classification results, however, to date, none have been implemented into clinical practice. After a screening of 12,470 studies, we included 29 eligible studies in our systematic review. From each study, we aggregated data on model design, development, and best classifiers, as well as quality of reporting according to the TRIPOD statement. In a subset of eligible studies, we conducted a meta-analysis of the reported AUC. It was found that data predominantly originated from single-center institutions (n = 25/29) and only two studies performed external validation. The median TRIPOD adherence was 0.48, indicating insufficient quality of reporting among surveyed studies. Our findings illustrate that despite promising classification results, reliable model assessment is limited by poor reporting of study design and lack of algorithm validation and generalizability. Therefore, adherence to quality guidelines and validation on outside datasets is critical for the clinical translation of ML for the differentiation of glioma and brain metastasis.