Search

Abstract Gliomas with CDKN2A mutations are known to have worse prognosis but imaging features of these gliomas are unknown. Our goal is to identify CDKN2A specific qualitative imaging biomarkers in glioblastomas using a new informatics workflow that enables rapid analysis of qualitative imaging features with Visually AcceSAble Rembrandtr Images (VASARI) for large datasets in PACS. Sixty nine patients undergoing GBM resection with CDKN2A status determined by whole-exome sequencing were included. GBMs on magnetic resonance images were automatically 3D segmented using deep learning algorithms incorporated within PACS. VASARI features were assessed using FHIR forms integrated within PACS. GBMs without CDKN2A alterations were significantly larger (64 vs. 30%, p = 0.007) compared to tumors with homozygous deletion (HOMDEL) and heterozygous loss (HETLOSS). Lesions larger than 8 cm were four times more likely to have no CDKN2A alteration (OR: 4.3; 95% CI 1.5–12.1; p

Deep-learning methods for auto-segmenting brain images either segment one slice of the image (2D), five consecutive slices of the image (2.5D), or an entire volume of the image (3D). Whether one approach is superior for auto-segmenting brain images is not known. We compared these three approaches (3D, 2.5D, and 2D) across three auto-segmentation models (capsule networks, UNets, and nnUNets) to segment brain structures. We used 3430 brain MRIs, acquired in a multi-institutional study, to train and test our models. We used the following performance metrics: segmentation accuracy, performance with limited training data, required computational memory, and computational speed during training and deployment. The 3D, 2.5D, and 2D approaches respectively gave the highest to lowest Dice scores across all models. 3D models maintained higher Dice scores when the training set size was decreased from 3199 MRIs down to 60 MRIs. 3D models converged 20% to 40% faster during training and were 30% to 50% faster during deployment. However, 3D models require 20 times more computational memory compared to 2.5D or 2D models. This study showed that 3D models are more accurate, maintain better performance with limited training data, and are faster to train and deploy. However, 3D models require more computational memory compared to 2.5D or 2D models.