Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35396525›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Pseudoprogression prediction in high grade primary CNS tumors by use of radiomics.

Asena Petek Ari, Burak Han Akkurt, Manfred Musigmann, Orkhan Mammadov, David A Blömer, Dilek N G Kasap, Dylan J H A Henssen, Nabila Gala Nacul, Elisabeth Sartoretti, Thomas Sartoretti and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Asena Petek AriUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Burak Han AkkurtUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Manfred MusigmannUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Orkhan MammadovUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
David A BlömerUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Dilek N G KasapUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Dylan J H A HenssenDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud University, 6500HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Nabila Gala NaculUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Elisabeth SartorettiFaculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thomas SartorettiFaculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Philipp BackhausDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Christian ThomasInstitute of Neuropathology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Walter StummerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Walter HeindelUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Manoj MannilUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany. manoj.mannil@ukmuenster.de.
University Hospital Münster · DEUniversity of Zurich · CHRadboud University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our aim is to define the capabilities of radiomics and machine learning in predicting pseudoprogression development from pre-treatment MR images in a patient cohort diagnosed with high grade gliomas. In this retrospective analysis, we analysed 131 patients with high grade gliomas. Segmentation of the contrast enhancing parts of the tumor before administration of radio-chemotherapy was semi-automatically performed using the 3D Slicer open-source software platform (version 4.10) on T1 post contrast MR images. Imaging data was split into training data, test data and an independent validation sample at random. We extracted a total of 107 radiomic features by hand-delineated regions of interest (ROI). Feature selection and model construction were performed using Generalized Boosted Regression Models (GBM). 131 patients were included, of which 64 patients had a histopathologically proven progressive disease and 67 were diagnosed with mixed or pure pseudoprogression after initial treatment. Our Radiomics approach is able to predict the occurrence of pseudoprogression with an AUC, mean sensitivity, mean specificity and mean accuracy of 91.49% [86.27%, 95.89%], 79.92% [73.08%, 87.55%], 88.61% [85.19%, 94.44%] and 84.35% [80.19%, 90.57%] in the full development group, 78.51% [75.27%, 82.46%], 66.26% [57.95%, 73.02%], 78.31% [70.48%, 84.19%] and 72.40% [68.06%, 76.85%] in the testing group and finally 72.87% [70.18%, 76.28%], 71.75% [62.29%, 75.00%], 80.00% [69.23%, 84.62%] and 76.04% [69.90%, 80.00%] in the independent validation sample, respectively. Our results indicate that radiomics is a promising tool to predict pseudo-progression, thus potentially allowing to reduce the use of biopsies and invasive histopathology.

Indexed as

GliomaMachine LearningHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35396525
PMCPMC8993885
OpenAlexW4223638342

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.