基于人工智能的胶质母细胞瘤患者脑肿瘤反应自动评估的开发与评估

Jikai Zhang, Dominic LaBella, Dylan Zhang, Jessica L Houk, Jeffrey D Rudie, Haotian Zou, Pranav Warman, Maciej A Mazurowski, Evan Calabrese
{"title":"基于人工智能的胶质母细胞瘤患者脑肿瘤反应自动评估的开发与评估","authors":"Jikai Zhang, Dominic LaBella, Dylan Zhang, Jessica L Houk, Jeffrey D Rudie, Haotian Zou, Pranav Warman, Maciej A Mazurowski, Evan Calabrese","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>To develop and evaluate an automated, AI-based, volumetric brain tumor MRI response assessment algorithm on a large cohort of patients treated at a high-volume brain tumor center.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed data from 634 patients treated for glioblastoma at a single brain tumor center over a 5-year period (2017-2021). The mean age was 56 +/-13 years. 372/634 (59%) patients were male, and 262/634 (41%) patients were female. Study data consisted of 3,403 brain MRI exams and corresponding standardized, radiologist-based brain tumor response assessments (BT-RADS). An artificial intelligence (AI)-based brain tumor response assessment algorithm was developed using automated, volumetric tumor segmentation. AI-based response assessments were evaluated for agreement with radiologist-based response assessments and ability to stratify patients by overall survival. Metrics were computed to assess the agreement using BTRADS as the ground-truth, fixed-time point survival analysis was conducted to evaluate the survival stratification, and associated P-values were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For all BT-RADS categories, AI-based response assessments showed moderate agreement with radiologists' response assessments (F1 = 0.587-0.755). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed statistically worse overall fixed time point survival for patients assessed as image worsening equivalent to RANO progression by human alone compared to by AI alone (log-rank P=0.007). Cox proportional hazard model analysis showed a disadvantage to AI-based assessments for overall survival prediction (P=0.012).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI-based volumetric glioblastoma MRI response assessment following BT-RADS criteria yielded moderate agreement for replicating human response assessments and slightly worse stratification by overall survival.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>GBM= Glioblastoma; RANO= Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology; BTRADS= Brain Tumor Reporting and Data System; NLP = Natural Language Processing.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Evaluation of Automated Artificial Intelligence-Based Brain Tumor Response Assessment in Patients with Glioblastoma.\",\"authors\":\"Jikai Zhang, Dominic LaBella, Dylan Zhang, Jessica L Houk, Jeffrey D Rudie, Haotian Zou, Pranav Warman, Maciej A Mazurowski, Evan Calabrese\",\"doi\":\"10.3174/ajnr.A8580\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>To develop and evaluate an automated, AI-based, volumetric brain tumor MRI response assessment algorithm on a large cohort of patients treated at a high-volume brain tumor center.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed data from 634 patients treated for glioblastoma at a single brain tumor center over a 5-year period (2017-2021). The mean age was 56 +/-13 years. 372/634 (59%) patients were male, and 262/634 (41%) patients were female. Study data consisted of 3,403 brain MRI exams and corresponding standardized, radiologist-based brain tumor response assessments (BT-RADS). An artificial intelligence (AI)-based brain tumor response assessment algorithm was developed using automated, volumetric tumor segmentation. AI-based response assessments were evaluated for agreement with radiologist-based response assessments and ability to stratify patients by overall survival. Metrics were computed to assess the agreement using BTRADS as the ground-truth, fixed-time point survival analysis was conducted to evaluate the survival stratification, and associated P-values were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For all BT-RADS categories, AI-based response assessments showed moderate agreement with radiologists' response assessments (F1 = 0.587-0.755). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed statistically worse overall fixed time point survival for patients assessed as image worsening equivalent to RANO progression by human alone compared to by AI alone (log-rank P=0.007). Cox proportional hazard model analysis showed a disadvantage to AI-based assessments for overall survival prediction (P=0.012).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI-based volumetric glioblastoma MRI response assessment following BT-RADS criteria yielded moderate agreement for replicating human response assessments and slightly worse stratification by overall survival.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>GBM= Glioblastoma; RANO= Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology; BTRADS= Brain Tumor Reporting and Data System; NLP = Natural Language Processing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93863,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8580\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8580","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:在一个高容量脑肿瘤中心接受治疗的大样本患者中,开发并评估一种基于人工智能的自动化脑肿瘤核磁共振成像容积反应评估算法:我们回顾性分析了在一家脑肿瘤中心接受治疗的 634 名胶质母细胞瘤患者的数据,时间跨度为 5 年(2017-2021 年)。平均年龄为 56 +/-13 岁。372/634(59%)名患者为男性,262/634(41%)名患者为女性。研究数据包括 3403 次脑磁共振成像检查和相应的标准化、基于放射医师的脑肿瘤反应评估(BT-RADS)。利用自动肿瘤体积分割技术开发了基于人工智能(AI)的脑肿瘤反应评估算法。对基于人工智能的反应评估与基于放射科医生的反应评估的一致性以及按总生存期对患者进行分层的能力进行了评估。以 BT-RADS 为基础真相,计算了评估一致性的指标,进行了固定时间点生存分析以评估生存分层,并计算了相关的 P 值:对于所有 BT-RADS 类别,基于人工智能的反应评估与放射科医生的反应评估显示出中等程度的一致性(F1 = 0.587-0.755)。卡普兰-梅耶尔生存分析显示,与单独使用人工智能相比,单独使用人工智能评估图像恶化等同于 RANO 进展的患者的总体固定时间点生存率在统计学上更低(log-rank P=0.007)。Cox比例危险模型分析显示,基于人工智能的评估在预测总生存率方面处于劣势(P=0.012):结论:基于AI的胶质母细胞瘤MRI容积反应评估遵循BT-RADS标准,在复制人类反应评估方面取得了中等程度的一致性,但在总生存期分层方面稍差:缩写:GBM=胶质母细胞瘤;RANO=神经肿瘤学反应评估;BTRADS=脑肿瘤报告和数据系统;NLP=自然语言处理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Development and Evaluation of Automated Artificial Intelligence-Based Brain Tumor Response Assessment in Patients with Glioblastoma.

Background and purpose: To develop and evaluate an automated, AI-based, volumetric brain tumor MRI response assessment algorithm on a large cohort of patients treated at a high-volume brain tumor center.

Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 634 patients treated for glioblastoma at a single brain tumor center over a 5-year period (2017-2021). The mean age was 56 +/-13 years. 372/634 (59%) patients were male, and 262/634 (41%) patients were female. Study data consisted of 3,403 brain MRI exams and corresponding standardized, radiologist-based brain tumor response assessments (BT-RADS). An artificial intelligence (AI)-based brain tumor response assessment algorithm was developed using automated, volumetric tumor segmentation. AI-based response assessments were evaluated for agreement with radiologist-based response assessments and ability to stratify patients by overall survival. Metrics were computed to assess the agreement using BTRADS as the ground-truth, fixed-time point survival analysis was conducted to evaluate the survival stratification, and associated P-values were calculated.

Results: For all BT-RADS categories, AI-based response assessments showed moderate agreement with radiologists' response assessments (F1 = 0.587-0.755). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed statistically worse overall fixed time point survival for patients assessed as image worsening equivalent to RANO progression by human alone compared to by AI alone (log-rank P=0.007). Cox proportional hazard model analysis showed a disadvantage to AI-based assessments for overall survival prediction (P=0.012).

Conclusions: AI-based volumetric glioblastoma MRI response assessment following BT-RADS criteria yielded moderate agreement for replicating human response assessments and slightly worse stratification by overall survival.

Abbreviations: GBM= Glioblastoma; RANO= Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology; BTRADS= Brain Tumor Reporting and Data System; NLP = Natural Language Processing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Arterial Spin-Labeling and DSC Perfusion MR Imaging in Pediatric Brain Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostic Performance of Renal Contrast Excretion on Early-Phase CT Myelography in Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension. Prolonged Venous Transit on Perfusion Imaging is Associated with Longer Lengths of Stay in Acute Large Vessel Occlusions. Accuracy of an nnUNet neural network for the automatic segmentation of intracranial aneurysms, their parent vessels and major cerebral arteries from magnetic resonance imaging-Time of flight (MRI-TOF). Accuracy of Financial Disclosures by Scientific Presenters/Authors at the ASNR 2024 annual meeting.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1