Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30952559›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Oncology2019

Automated quantitative tumour response assessment of MRI in neuro-oncology with artificial neural networks: a multicentre, retrospective study.

Philipp Kickingereder, Fabian Isensee, Irada Tursunova, Jens Petersen, Ulf Neuberger, David Bonekamp, Gianluca Brugnara, Marianne Schell, Tobias Kessler, Martha Foltyn and 17 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01290939 (Phase III Trial Exploring the Combination of Bevacizumab and Lomustine in Patients With First Recurrence of a Glioblastoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 268 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
268citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01290939 phase3completednot on this map

Phase III Trial Exploring the Combination of Bevacizumab and Lomustine in Patients With First Recurrence of a Glioblastoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer - EORTCRan2011 to 2020Enrolled592ConditionsGlioblastoma Multiforme, Cognition Disorders, Disability EvaluationArmsbevacizumab, lomustine, DNA methylation analysis, laboratory biomarker analysis, cognitive assessment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

268 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

208 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

Philipp KickingerederDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: philipp.kickingereder@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Fabian IsenseeMedical Image Computing, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Irada TursunovaDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jens PetersenDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Medical Image Computing, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Ulf NeubergerDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
David BonekampDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Gianluca BrugnaraDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Marianne SchellDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Tobias KesslerNeurology Clinic, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Martha FoltynDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Inga HartingDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Felix SahmDepartment of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Marcel PragerDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Martha NowosielskiNeurology Clinic, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Neurology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Antje WickNeurology Clinic, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Marco NoldenMedical Image Computing, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Alexander RadbruchDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Jürgen DebusDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heinz-Peter SchlemmerDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Sabine HeilandDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael PlattenNeurology Clinic, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Neurology, Mannheim Medical Center, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Andreas von DeimlingDepartment of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin J van den BentBrain Tumor Center at Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Thierry GorliaEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
Wolfgang WickNeurology Clinic, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin BendszusDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Klaus H Maier-HeinMedical Image Computing, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria and requirements for a uniform protocol have been introduced to standardise assessment of MRI scans in both clinical trials and clinical practice. However, these criteria mainly rely on manual two-dimensional measurements of contrast-enhancing (CE) target lesions and thus restrict both reliability and accurate assessment of tumour burden and treatment response. We aimed to develop a framework relying on artificial neural networks (ANNs) for fully automated quantitative analysis of MRI in neuro-oncology to overcome the inherent limitations of manual assessment of tumour burden.

methodsIn this retrospective study, we compiled a single-institution dataset of MRI data from patients with brain tumours being treated at Heidelberg University Hospital (Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg training dataset) to develop and train an ANN for automated identification and volumetric segmentation of CE tumours and non-enhancing T2-signal abnormalities (NEs) on MRI. Independent testing and large-scale application of the ANN for tumour segmentation was done in a single-institution longitudinal testing dataset from the Heidelberg University Hospital and in a multi-institutional longitudinal testing dataset from the prospective randomised phase 2 and 3 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-26101 trial (NCT01290939), acquired at 38 institutions across Europe. In both longitudinal datasets, spatial and temporal tumour volume dynamics were automatically quantified to calculate time to progression, which was compared with time to progression determined by RANO, both in terms of reliability and as a surrogate endpoint for predicting overall survival. We integrated this approach for fully automated quantitative analysis of MRI in neuro-oncology within an application-ready software infrastructure and applied it in a simulated clinical environment of patients with brain tumours from the Heidelberg University Hospital (Heidelberg simulation dataset).

findingsFor training of the ANN, MRI data were collected from 455 patients with brain tumours (one MRI per patient) being treated at Heidelberg hospital between July 29, 2009, and March 17, 2017 (Heidelberg training dataset). For independent testing of the ANN, an independent longitudinal dataset of 40 patients, with data from 239 MRI scans, was collected at Heidelberg University Hospital in parallel with the training dataset (Heidelberg test dataset), and 2034 MRI scans from 532 patients at 34 institutions collected between Oct 26, 2011, and Dec 3, 2015, in the EORTC-26101 study were of sufficient quality to be included in the EORTC-26101 test dataset. The ANN yielded excellent performance for accurate detection and segmentation of CE tumours and NE volumes in both longitudinal test datasets (median DICE coefficient for CE tumours 0·89 [95% CI 0·86-0·90], and for NEs 0·93 [0·92-0·94] in the Heidelberg test dataset; CE tumours 0·91 [0·90-0·92], NEs 0·93 [0·93-0·94] in the EORTC-26101 test dataset). Time to progression from quantitative ANN-based assessment of tumour response was a significantly better surrogate endpoint than central RANO assessment for predicting overall survival in the EORTC-26101 test dataset (hazard ratios ANN 2·59 [95% CI 1·86-3·60] vs central RANO 2·07 [1·46-2·92]; p<0·0001) and also yielded a 36% margin over RANO (p<0·0001) when comparing reliability values (ie, agreement in the quantitative volumetrically defined time to progression [based on radiologist ground truth vs automated assessment with ANN] of 87% [266 of 306 with sufficient data] compared with 51% [155 of 306] with local vs independent central RANO assessment). In the Heidelberg simulation dataset, which comprised 466 patients with brain tumours, with 595 MRI scans obtained between April 27, and Sept 17, 2018, automated on-demand processing of MRI scans and quantitative tumour response assessment within the simulated clinical environment required 10 min of computation time (average per scan).

interpretationOverall, we found that ANN enabled objective and automated assessment of tumour response in neuro-oncology at high throughput and could ultimately serve as a blueprint for the application of ANN in radiology to improve clinical decision making. Future research should focus on prospective validation within clinical trials and application for automated high-throughput imaging biomarker discovery and extension to other diseases.

fundingMedical Faculty Heidelberg Postdoc-Program, Else Kröner-Fresenius Foundation.

Indexed as

Diagnosis, Computer-AssistedImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural Networks, ComputerAutomationBrain NeoplasmsClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicDatabases, FactualDisease ProgressionFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMulticenter Studies as TopicPredictive Value of Tests

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.