Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34201251›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Development and External Validation of Deep-Learning-Based Tumor Grading Models in Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Patients Using MR Imaging.

Fernando Navarro, Hendrik Dapper, Rebecca Asadpour, Carolin Knebel, Matthew B Spraker, Vincent Schwarze, Stephanie K Schaub, Nina A Mayr, Katja Specht, Henry C Woodruff and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Multi-institutional validation of a radiomics signature for identification of postoperative progression of soft tissue sarcoma.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Fernando NavarroDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8906-9079
Hendrik DapperDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Rebecca AsadpourDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Carolin KnebelDepartment of Orthopedics and Sports Orthopedics, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Matthew B SprakerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, 4511 Forest Park Ave, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA.
Vincent SchwarzeDepartment of Radiology, Grosshadern Campus, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Stephanie K SchaubDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, 356043, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Nina A MayrDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, 356043, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Katja SpechtDepartment of Pathology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Trogerstr. 18, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Henry C WoodruffDepartment of Precision Medicine, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7911-5123
Philippe LambinDepartment of Precision Medicine, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7961-0191
Alexandra S GersingDepartment of Radiology, Grosshadern Campus, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Matthew J NyflotDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, 356043, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2356-9422
Bjoern H MenzeDepartment of Informatics, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748 Garching, Germany.
Stephanie E CombsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Jan C PeekenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2679-9853
TUM Klinikum · DEUniversity of Washington · USMaastricht University · NLUniversity of Zurich · CHLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DETechnical University of Munich · DEWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft GRK2274Helmholtz Zentrum München N/ATechnische Universität München N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn patients with soft-tissue sarcomas, tumor grading constitutes a decisive factor to determine the best treatment decision. Tumor grading is obtained by pathological work-up after focal biopsies. Deep learning (DL)-based imaging analysis may pose an alternative way to characterize STS tissue. In this work, we sought to non-invasively differentiate tumor grading into low-grade (G1) and high-grade (G2/G3) STS using DL techniques based on MR-imaging.

methodsContrast-enhanced T1-weighted fat-saturated (T1FSGd) MRI sequences and fat-saturated T2-weighted (T2FS) sequences were collected from two independent retrospective cohorts (training: 148 patients, testing: 158 patients). Tumor grading was determined following the French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group in pre-therapeutic biopsies. DL models were developed using transfer learning based on the DenseNet 161 architecture.

resultsThe T1FSGd and T2FS-based DL models achieved area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.75 and 0.76 on the test cohort, respectively. T1FSGd achieved the best F1-score of all models (0.90). The T2FS-based DL model was able to significantly risk-stratify for overall survival. Attention maps revealed relevant features within the tumor volume and in border regions.

conclusionsMRI-based DL models are capable of predicting tumor grading with good reproducibility in external validation.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceconvolutional neural networksdeep learningmachine learningMRIsoft-tissue sarcomastumor grading

Identifiers

PMID34201251
PMCPMC8227009
OpenAlexW3168395987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.