Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34262079›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Distinct tumor signatures using deep learning-based characterization of the peritumoral microenvironment in glioblastomas and brain metastases.

Zahra Riahi Samani, Drew Parker, Ronald Wolf, Wes Hodges, Steven Brem, Ragini Verma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Development and validation of a multi-modality fusion deep learning model for differentiating glioblastoma from solitary brain metastases.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
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

6 authors.

Zahra Riahi SamaniDiffusion and Connectomics in Precision Healthcare Research Lab (DiCIPHR), Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Drew ParkerDiffusion and Connectomics in Precision Healthcare Research Lab (DiCIPHR), Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Ronald WolfDepartment of Radiology, Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Wes HodgesFounder at Synaptive Medical, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Steven BremDepartment of Radiology, Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Ragini VermaDiffusion and Connectomics in Precision Healthcare Research Lab (DiCIPHR), Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Ragini@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.

Funding

Connectomics meets neuro-oncology: mapping the brain for treatment planningR01NS096606 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BREM, STEVEN, VERMA, RAGINI · 2016 to 2020
$2.7M
Biomedical Image Computing and Informatics ClusterS10OD023495 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI DAVATZIKOS, CHRISTOS · 2017 to 2017
$1.9M
National Institute of Health, United States 5R01NS096606-04NIH HHS S10 OD023495NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS096606
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumor types are classically distinguished based on biopsies of the tumor itself, as well as a radiological interpretation using diverse MRI modalities. In the current study, the overarching goal is to demonstrate that primary (glioblastomas) and secondary (brain metastases) malignancies can be differentiated based on the microstructure of the peritumoral region. This is achieved by exploiting the extracellular water differences between vasogenic edema and infiltrative tissue and training a convolutional neural network (CNN) on the Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI)-derived free water volume fraction. We obtained 85% accuracy in discriminating extracellular water differences between local patches in the peritumoral area of 66 glioblastomas and 40 metastatic patients in a cross-validation setting. On an independent test cohort consisting of 20 glioblastomas and 10 metastases, we got 93% accuracy in discriminating metastases from glioblastomas using majority voting on patches. This level of accuracy surpasses CNNs trained on other conventional DTI-based measures such as fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD), that have been used in other studies. Additionally, the CNN captures the peritumoral heterogeneity better than conventional texture features, including Gabor and radiomic features. Our results demonstrate that the extracellular water content of the peritumoral tissue, as captured by the free water volume fraction, is best able to characterize the differences between infiltrative and vasogenic peritumoral regions, paving the way for its use in classifying and benchmarking peritumoral tissue with varying degrees of infiltration.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain NeoplasmsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleGlioblastomaHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsTumor MicroenvironmentYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34262079
PMCPMC8280204

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.