Noninvasive Determination of IDH and 1p19q Status of Lower-grade Gliomas Using MRI Radiomics: A Systematic Review

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Stark AM,
   2. van de Bergh J,
   3. Hedderich J, et al

   . Glioblastoma: clinical characteristics, prognostic factors and survival in 492 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2012;114:840–45 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2012.01.026 pmid:22377333

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Louis DN,
   2. Perry A,
   3. Reifenberger G, et al

   . The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 2016;131:803–20 doi:10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 pmid:27157931

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Akay A,
   2. Rüksen M,
   3. Islekel S

   . Magnetic resonance imaging-guided stereotactic biopsy: a review of 83 cases with outcomes. Asian J Neurosurg 2019;14:90–95 doi:10.4103/ajns.AJNS_81_17 pmid:30937016

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Lasocki A,
   2. Tsui A,
   3. Tacey MA, et al

   . MRI grading versus histology: predicting survival of World Health Organization grade II-IV astrocytomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:77–83 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4077 pmid:25104288

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Horbinski C

   . What do we know about IDH 1/2 mutations so far, and how do we use it? Acta Neuropathol 2013;125:621–36 doi:10.1007/s00401-013-1106-9 pmid:23512379

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Preusser M,
   2. Wöhrer A,
   3. Stary S, et al

   . Value and limitations of immunohistochemistry and gene sequencing for detection of the IDH 1-R132H mutation in diffuse glioma biopsy specimens. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 2011;70:715–23 doi:10.1097/NEN.0b013e31822713f0 pmid:21760534

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Broen MPG,
   2. Smits M,
   3. Wijnenga MM, et al

   . The T2-FLAIR mismatch sign as an imaging marker for non-enhancing IDH-mutant, 1p/19q-intact lower-grade glioma: a validation study. Neuro Oncol 2018;20:1393–99 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noy048 pmid:29590424

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Lasocki A,
   2. Gaillard F,
   3. Gorelik A, et al

   . MRI features can predict 1p/19q status in intracranial gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:687–92 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5572 pmid:29519793

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Patel SH,
   2. Poisson LM,
   3. Brat DJ, et al

   . T2-FLAIR mismatch, an imaging biomarker for IDH and 1p/19q status in lower-grade gliomas: a TCGA/TCIA Project. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23:6078–85 doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0560 pmid:28751449

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Johnson DR,
    2. Diehn FE,
    3. Giannini C, et al

    . Genetically defined oligodendroglioma is characterized by indistinct tumor borders at MRI. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:678–84 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5070 pmid:28126746

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Gillies RJ,
    2. Kinahan PE,
    3. Hricak H

    . Radiomics: images are more than pictures: they are data. Radiology 2016;278:563–77 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015151169 pmid:26579733

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Lambin P,
    2. Leijenaar RT,
    3. Deist TM, et al

    . Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017;14:749–62 doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141 pmid:28975929

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. van den Bent MJ

    . Interobserver variation of the histopathological diagnosis in clinical trials on glioma: a clinician's perspective. Acta Neuropathol 2010;120:297–304 doi:10.1007/s00401-010-0725-7 pmid:20644945

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. McInnes MD,
    2. Moher D,
    3. Thombs BD, et al

    ; PRISMA-DTA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: the PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA 2018;319:388–96 doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19163 pmid:29362800

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Matsui Y,
    2. Maruyama T,
    3. Nitta M, et al

    . Prediction of lower-grade glioma molecular subtypes using deep learning. J Neurooncol 2020;146:321–27 doi:10.1007/s11060-019-03376-9 pmid:31865510

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Zhou XH,
    2. McClish DK,
    3. Obuchowski NA, et al

    . Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. John Wiley & Sons; 2011
17. 17.↵
    1. Whiting PF,
    2. Rutjes AW,
    3. Westwood ME, et al

    ; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 pmid:22007046

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Collins GS,
    2. Reitsma JB,
    3. Altman DG, et al

    . Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD). Ann Intern Med 2015;162:735–36 doi:10.7326/L15-5093-2 pmid:25984857

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. McHugh ML

    . Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012;22:276–82 doi:10.11613/BM.2012.031 pmid:23092060

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Ursprung S,
    2. Beer L,
    3. Bruining A, et al

    . Radiomics of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in renal cell carcinoma-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2020;30:3558–66 doi:10.1007/s00330-020-06666-3 pmid:32060715

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Park JE,
    2. Kim HS,
    3. Kim D, et al

    . A systematic review reporting quality of radiomics research in neuro-oncology: toward clinical utility and quality improvement using high-dimensional imaging features. BMC Cancer 2020;20:29 doi:10.1186/s12885-019-6504-5 pmid:31924170

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Fukuma R,
    2. Yanagisawa T,
    3. Kinoshita M, et al

    . Prediction of IDH and TERT promoter mutations in low-grade glioma from magnetic resonance images using a convolutional neural network. Sci Rep 2019;9:20311 doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56767-3 pmid:31889117

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Gihr GA,
    2. Horvath-Rizea D,
    3. Hekeler E, et al

    . Histogram analysis of diffusion weighted imaging in low-grade gliomas: in vivo characterization of tumor architecture and corresponding neuropathology. Front Oncol 2020;10:206 doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.00206 pmid:32158691

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Jakola AS,
    2. Zhang YH,
    3. Skjulsvik AJ, et al

    . Quantitative texture analysis in the prediction of IDH status in low-grade gliomas. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2018;164:114–20 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.12.007 pmid:29220731

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Kim M,
    2. Jung SY,
    3. Park JE, et al

    . Diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MRI radiomics model may predict isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation and tumor aggressiveness in diffuse lower grade glioma. Eur Radiol 2020;30:2142–51 doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06548-3 pmid:31828414

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Kocak B,
    2. Durmaz ES,
    3. Ates E, et al

    . Radiogenomics of lower-grade gliomas: machine learning-based MRI texture analysis for predicting 1p/19q codeletion status. Eur Radiol 2020;30:877–86 doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06492-2 pmid:31691122

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Li Z,
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Yu J, et al

    . Deep Learning-Based Radiomics (DLR) and its usage in noninvasive IDH 1 prediction for low grade glioma. Sci Rep 2017;7:5467 doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05848-2 pmid:28710497

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Lu CF,
    2. Hsu FT,
    3. Hsieh KLC, et al

    . Machine learning–based radiomics for molecular subtyping of gliomas. Clin Cancer Res 2018;24:4429–36 doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-3445 pmid:29789422

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    1. Park CJ,
    2. Choi YS,
    3. Park YW, et al

    . Diffusion tensor imaging radiomics in lower-grade glioma: improving subtyping of isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation status. Neuroradiology 2020;62:319–26 doi:10.1007/s00234-019-02312-y pmid:31820065

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Ren Y,
    2. Zhang X,
    3. Rui W, et al

    . Noninvasive prediction of IDH 1 mutation and ATRX expression loss in low-grade gliomas using multiparametric MR radiomic features. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49:808–17 doi:10.1002/jmri.26240 pmid:30194745

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Shofty B,
    2. Artzi M,
    3. Ben Bashat D, et al

    . MRI radiomics analysis of molecular alterations in low-grade gliomas. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2018;13:563–71 doi:10.1007/s11548-017-1691-5 pmid:29270916

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Yu J,
    2. Shi Z,
    3. Lian Y, et al

    . Noninvasive IDH 1 mutation estimation based on a quantitative radiomics approach for grade II glioma. Eur Radiol 2017;27:3509–22 doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4653-3 pmid:28004160

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Zhang X,
    2. Tian Q,
    3. Wang L, et al

    . Radiomics strategy for molecular subtype stratification of lower-grade glioma: detecting IDH and TP53 mutations based on multimodal MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;48:916–26 doi:10.1002/jmri.25960 pmid:29394005

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Zhou H,
    2. Vallieres M,
    3. Bai H, et al

    . MRI features predict survival and molecular markers in diffuse lower-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:862–70 doi:10.1093/neuonc/now256 pmid:28339588

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Han Y,
    2. Wang W,
    3. Yang Y, et al

    . Amide proton transfer imaging in predicting isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 mutation status of grade II/III gliomas based on support vector machine. Front Neurosci 2020;14:144 doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.00144 pmid:32153362

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Bakas S,
    2. Akbari H,
    3. Sotiras A, et al

    . Advancing The Cancer Genome Atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features. Sci Data 2017;4:170117 doi:10.1038/sdata.2017.117 pmid:28872634

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.
    1. Bakas S,
    2. Reyes M,
    3. Jakab A, et al

    . Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the BRATS challenge. 2018 https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.02629. Accessed April 18, 2020
38. 38.↵
    1. Menze BH,
    2. Jakab A,
    3. Bauer S, et al

    . The Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2015;34:1993–2024 doi:10.1109/TMI.2014.2377694 pmid:25494501

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Myronenko A

    . 3D MRI brain tumor segmentation using autoencoder regularization. International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop: Springer; 2018:311–20
40. 40.↵
    1. Zhang Z,
    2. Xiao J,
    3. Wu S, et al

    . Deep convolutional radiomic features on diffusion tensor images for classification of glioma grades. J Digit Imaging.2020;33:826–37 doi:10.1007/s10278-020-00322-4 pmid:32040669

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Higgins JP,
    2. Thomas J,
    3. Chandler J, et al

    . Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2019
42. 42.↵
    1. van der Voort SR,
    2. Incekara F,
    3. Wijnenga MM, et al

    . Predicting the 1p/19q codeletion status of presumed low-grade glioma with an externally validated machine learning algorithm. Clin Cancer Res 2019;25:7455–62 doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1127 pmid:31548344

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
43. 43.↵
    1. Delfanti RL,
    2. Piccioni DE,
    3. Handwerker J, et al

    . Imaging correlates for the 2016 update on WHO classification of grade II/III gliomas: implications for IDH, 1p/19q and ATRX status. J Neurooncol 2017;135:601–09 doi:10.1007/s11060-017-2613-7 pmid:28871469

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    1. Zhou Q,
    2. Cao YH,
    3. Chen ZH

    . Lack of evidence and criteria to evaluate artificial intelligence and radiomics tools to be implemented in clinical settings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019;46:2812–13 doi:10.1007/s00259-019-04493-3 pmid:31696246

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    1. Lew C

    . The promise of clinical AI: an adaptive future. Applied Radiol 2018;47:3–6 https://www.appliedradiology.com/articles/the-promise-of-clinical-ai-an-adaptive-future#:∼:text=The%20Promise%20of%20Clinical%20AI%3A%20An%20Adaptive%20Future.,predictive%20analytics%20for%20population%20health%20management%2C%20and%20beyond. Accessed April 18, 2020
46. 46.
    1. Sana M

    . Machine learning and artificial intelligence in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:1139–42 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.11.015 pmid:29275917

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.
    1. Shader RI

    . Some thoughts about artificial intelligence. Clin Ther 2019;41:1401–03 doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.06.016 pmid:31345558

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    1. Topol EJ

    . High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med 2019;25:44–56 doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7 pmid:30617339

    CrossRefPubMed
49. 49.↵
    European Society of Radiology. Impact of artificial intelligence on radiology: a EuroAIM survey among members of the European Society of Radiology. Insights imaging 2019;10:105 doi:10.1186/s13244-019-0798-3 pmid:31673823

    CrossRefPubMed
50. 50.
    1. van Hoek J,
    2. Huber A,
    3. Leichtle A, et al

    . A survey on the future of radiology among radiologists, medical students and surgeons: students and surgeons tend to be more skeptical about artificial intelligence and radiologists may fear that other disciplines take over. Eur J Radiol 2019;121:108742 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108742 pmid:31734640

    CrossRefPubMed
51. 51.↵
    1. Waymel Q,
    2. Badr S,
    3. Demondion X, et al

    . Impact of the rise of artificial intelligence in radiology: what do radiologists think? Diagn Interv Imaging 2019;100:327–36 doi:10.1016/j.diii.2019.03.015 pmid:31072803

    CrossRefPubMed
52. 52.↵
    1. Palmisciano P,
    2. Jamjoom AA,
    3. Taylor D, et al

    . Attitudes of patients and their relatives toward artificial intelligence in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 2020;138:e627–33 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.03.029 pmid:32179185

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    1. Likert R

    . A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 1932;22:55
54. 54.↵
    1. Ongena YP,
    2. Haan M,
    3. Yakar D, et al

    . Patients’ views on the implementation of artificial intelligence in radiology: development and validation of a standardized questionnaire. Eur Radiol 2020;30:1033–40 doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06486-0 pmid:31705254

    CrossRefPubMed
55. 55.↵
    1. Janssen CP,
    2. Donker SF,
    3. Brumby DP, et al

    . History and future of human-automation interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2019;131:99–107 doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.006

    CrossRef
56. 56.↵
    IBM Services. Beyond the hype: a guide to understanding and successfully implementing artificial intelligence within your business. https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/8ZDXNKQ4. 2018. Accessed April 18, 2020
57. 57.↵
    1. Amershi S,
    2. Weld D,
    3. Vorvoreanu M, et al

    . Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In: Proceedings of the Cultural Homestay International Conference on Human Factors in Computing System, Glasgow, UK; May 4–9, 2019
58. 58.↵
    1. Friedman LM.
    2. Furberg CD,
    3. DeMets Dl, et al

    . Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. Springer-Verlag; 2010
59. 59.↵
    1. He J,
    2. Baxter SL,
    3. Xu J, et al

    . The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine. Nat Med 2019;25:30–36 doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0307-0 pmid:30617336

    CrossRefPubMed