A Multiparametric MR-Based RadioFusionOmics Model with Robust Capabilities of Differentiating Glioblastoma Multiforme from Solitary Brain Metastasis

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic potential of a novel RFO model in differentiating GBM and SBM with multiparametric MR sequences collected from 244 (131 GBM and 113 SBM) patients. Three basic volume of interests (VOIs) were delineated on the conventional axial MR images (T<sub>1<...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jialiang Wu, Fangrong Liang, Ruili Wei, Shengsheng Lai, Xiaofei Lv, Shiwei Luo, Zhe Wu, Huixian Chen, Wanli Zhang, Xiangling Zeng, Xianghua Ye, Yong Wu, Xinhua Wei, Xinqing Jiang, Xin Zhen, Ruimeng Yang
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: MDPI AG 2021
Materias:
MRI
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/d97cb2f6355240bcbc4ce6c8ed0aa331
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Descripción
Sumario:This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic potential of a novel RFO model in differentiating GBM and SBM with multiparametric MR sequences collected from 244 (131 GBM and 113 SBM) patients. Three basic volume of interests (VOIs) were delineated on the conventional axial MR images (T<sub>1</sub>WI, T<sub>2</sub>WI, T<sub>2</sub>_FLAIR, and CE_T<sub>1</sub>WI), including volumetric non-enhanced tumor (nET), enhanced tumor (ET), and peritumoral edema (pTE). Using the RFO model, radiomics features extracted from different multiparametric MRI sequence(s) and VOI(s) were fused and the best sequence and VOI, or possible combinations, were determined. A multi-disciplinary team (MDT)-like fusion was performed to integrate predictions from the high-performing models for the final discrimination of GBM vs. SBM. Image features extracted from the volumetric ET (VOI<sub>ET</sub>) had dominant predictive performances over features from other VOI combinations. Fusion of VOI<sub>ET</sub> features from the T<sub>1</sub>WI and T<sub>2</sub>_FLAIR sequences via the RFO model achieved a discrimination accuracy of AUC = 0.925, accuracy = 0.855, sensitivity = 0.856, and specificity = 0.853, on the independent testing cohort 1, and AUC = 0.859, accuracy = 0.836, sensitivity = 0.708, and specificity = 0.919 on the independent testing cohort 2, which significantly outperformed three experienced radiologists (<i>p</i> = 0.03, 0.01, 0.02, and 0.01, and <i>p</i> = 0.02, 0.01, 0.45, and 0.02, respectively) and the MDT-decision result of three experienced experts (<i>p</i> = 0.03, 0.02, 0.03, and 0.02, and <i>p</i> = 0.03, 0.02, 0.44, and 0.03, respectively).