Ten Years of VASARI Glioma Features: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Their Impact and Performance

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Ellingson BM,
   2. Bendszus M,
   3. Boxerman J, et al

   . Consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol in clinical trials. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:1188–98 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov095

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Wen PY,
   2. van den Bent M,
   3. Youssef G, et al

   . RANO 2.0: update to the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria for high- and low-grade gliomas in adults. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:5187–99 doi:10.1200/JCO.23.01059 pmid:37774317

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   The Cancer Imaging Archive. VASARI Research Project. https://wiki.cancerimagingarchive.net/display/Public/VASARI+Research+Project. Accessed September 26, 2023
4. 4.↵
   1. Mazurowski MA,
   2. Desjardins A,
   3. Malof JM

   . Imaging descriptors improve the predictive power of survival models for glioblastoma patients. Neuro Oncol 2013;15:1389–94 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nos335 pmid:23396489

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Gutman DA,
   2. Cooper LA,
   3. Hwang SN, et al

   . MR imaging predictors of molecular profile and survival: multi-institutional study of the TCGA glioblastoma data set. Radiology 2013;267:560–69 doi:10.1148/radiol.13120118 pmid:23392431

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Agarwal A,
   2. Kumar S,
   3. Narang J, et al

   . Morphologic MRI features, diffusion tensor imaging and radiation dosimetric analysis to differentiate pseudo-progression from early tumor progression. J Neurooncol 2013;112:413–20 doi:10.1007/s11060-013-1070-1 pmid:23417357

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Jain R,
   2. Poisson LM,
   3. Gutman D, et al

   . Outcome prediction in patients with glioblastoma by using imaging, clinical, and genomic biomarkers: focus on the nonenhancing component of the tumor. Radiology 2014;272:484–93 doi:10.1148/radiol.14131691 pmid:24646147

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Colen RR,
   2. Vangel M,
   3. Wang J, et al

   ; TCGA Glioma Phenotype Research Group. Imaging genomic mapping of an invasive MRI phenotype predicts patient outcome and metabolic dysfunction: a TCGA glioma phenotype research group project. BMC Med Genomics 2014;7:30 doi:10.1186/1755-8794-7-30 pmid:24889866

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Nicolasjilwan M,
   2. Hu Y,
   3. Yan C, et al

   ; TCGA Glioma Phenotype Research Group. Addition of MR imaging features and genetic biomarkers strengthens glioblastoma survival prediction in TCGA patients. J Neuroradiol 2015;42:212–21 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2014.02.006 pmid:24997477

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Wangaryattawanich P,
    2. Hatami M,
    3. Wang J, et al

    . Multicenter imaging outcomes study of The Cancer Genome Atlas glioblastoma patient cohort: imaging predictors of overall and progression-free survival. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:1525–37 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov117 pmid:26203066

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Rao A,
    2. Rao G,
    3. Gutman DA, et al

    ; TCGA Glioma Phenotype Research Group. A combinatorial radiographic phenotype may stratify patient survival and be associated with invasion and proliferation characteristics in glioblastoma. J Neurosurg 2016;124:1008–17 doi:10.3171/2015.4.JNS142732 pmid:26473782

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Yu J,
    2. Wang M,
    3. Song J, et al

    . Potential utility of Visually AcceSAble Rembrandt Images assessment in brain astrocytoma grading. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2016;40:301–06 doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000352 pmid:26978002

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Zhou H,
    2. Vallières M,
    3. Bai HX, 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
14. 14.↵
    1. Lasocki A,
    2. Tsui A,
    3. Gaillard F, et al

    . Reliability of noncontrast-enhancing tumor as a biomarker of IDH1 mutation status in glioblastoma. J Clin Neurosci 2017;39:170–75 doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2017.01.007 pmid:28214089

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Park M,
    2. Lee SK,
    3. Chang JH, et al

    . Elderly patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: can preoperative imaging descriptors improve the predictive power of a survival model? J Neurooncol 2017;134:423–31 doi:10.1007/s11060-017-2544-3 pmid:28674975

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Ersoy TF,
    2. Keil VC,
    3. Hadizadeh DR, et al

    . New prognostic factor telomerase reverse transcriptase promotor mutation presents without MR imaging biomarkers in primary glioblastoma. Neuroradiology 2017;59:1223–31 doi:10.1007/s00234-017-1920-1 pmid:28894890

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Park YW,
    2. Han K,
    3. Ahn SS, et al

    . Prediction of IDH1-mutation and 1p/19q-codeletion status using preoperative MR imaging phenotypes in lower grade gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:37–42 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5421 pmid:29122763

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Peeken JC,
    2. Hesse J,
    3. Haller B, et al

    . Semantic imaging features predict disease progression and survival in glioblastoma multiforme patients. Strahlenther Onkol 2018;194:580–90 doi:10.1007/s00066-018-1276-4 pmid:29442128

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Su CQ,
    2. Lu SS,
    3. Han QY, et al

    . Intergrating conventional MRI, texture analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and susceptibility weighted imaging for glioma grading. Acta Radiol 2019;60:777–87 doi:10.1177/0284185118801127 pmid:30244590

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Su CQ,
    2. Lu SS,
    3. Zhou MD, et al

    . Combined texture analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging with conventional MRI for non-invasive assessment of IDH1 mutation in anaplastic gliomas. Clin Radiol 2019;74:154–60 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2018.10.002 pmid:30391048

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Peeken JC,
    2. Goldberg T,
    3. Pyka T, et al

    . Combining multimodal imaging and treatment features improves machine learning-based prognostic assessment in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Cancer Med 2019;8:128–36 doi:10.1002/cam4.1908 pmid:30561851

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Lee M,
    2. Han K,
    3. Ahn SS, et al

    . The added prognostic value of radiological phenotype combined with clinical features and molecular subtype in anaplastic gliomas. J Neurooncol 2019;142:129–38 doi:10.1007/s11060-018-03072-0 pmid:30604396

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Ivanidze J,
    2. Lum M,
    3. Pisapia D, et al

    . MRI features associated with TERT promoter mutation status in glioblastoma. J Neuroimaging 2019;29:357–63 doi:10.1111/jon.12596 pmid:30644143

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Chen X,
    2. Fang M,
    3. Dong D, et al

    . Development and validation of a MRI-based radiomics prognostic classifier in patients with primary glioblastoma multiforme. Acad Radiol 2019;26:1292–300 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2018.12.016 pmid:30660472

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Hyare H,
    2. Rice L,
    3. Thust S, et al

    . Modelling MR and clinical features in grade II/III astrocytomas to predict IDH mutation status. Eur J Radiol 2019;114:120–27 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.03.003 pmid:31005161

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Park CJ,
    2. Han K,
    3. Shin H, et al

    . MR image phenotypes may add prognostic value to clinical features in IDH wild-type lower-grade gliomas. Eur Radiol 2020;30:3035–45 doi:10.1007/s00330-020-06683-2 pmid:32060714

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Lu Y,
    2. Patel M,
    3. Natarajan K, et al

    . Machine learning-based radiomic, clinical and semantic feature analysis for predicting overall survival and MGMT promoter methylation status in patients with glioblastoma. Magn Reson Imaging 2020;74:161–70 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2020.09.017 pmid:32980505

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Cao M,
    2. Suo S,
    3. Zhang X, et al

    . Qualitative and quantitative MRI analysis in IDH1 genotype prediction of lower-grade gliomas: a machine learning approach. Biomed Res Int 2021;2021:1235314 doi:10.1155/2021/1235314 pmid:33553421

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Verduin M,
    2. Primakov S,
    3. Compter I, et al

    . Prognostic and predictive value of integrated qualitative and quantitative magnetic resonance imaging analysis in glioblastoma. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:722 doi:10.3390/cancers13040722 pmid:33578746

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Ahn SS,
    2. An C,
    3. Park YW, et al

    . Identification of magnetic resonance imaging features for the prediction of molecular profiles of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2021;154:83–92 doi:10.1007/s11060-021-03801-y pmid:34191225

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Wang J,
    2. Yi X,
    3. Fu Y, et al

    . Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging radiomics for predicting early recurrence of glioblastoma. Front Oncol 2021;11:769188 doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.769188 pmid:34778086

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Sun C,
    2. Fan L,
    3. Wang W, et al

    . Radiomics and qualitative features from multiparametric MRI predict molecular subtypes in patients with lower-grade glioma. Front Oncol 2021;11:756828 doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.756828 pmid:35127472

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Ge X,
    2. Wang M,
    3. Ma H, et al

    . Investigated diagnostic value of synthetic relaxometry, three-dimensional pseudo-continuous arterial spin labelling and diffusion-weighted imaging in the grading of glioma. Magn Reson Imaging 2022;86:20–27 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2021.11.006 pmid:34808303

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Ruan Z,
    2. Mei N,
    3. Lu Y, et al

    . A comparative and summative study of radiomics-based overall survival prediction in glioblastoma patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2022;46:470–79 doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000001300 pmid:35405713

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Sacli-Bilmez B,
    2. Firat Z,
    3. Topcuoglu OM, et al

    . Identifying overall survival in 98 glioblastomas using VASARI features at 3T. Clin Imaging 2023;93:86–92 doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2022.10.011 pmid:36417792

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Sahu A,
    2. Patnam NG,
    3. Goda JS, et al

    . Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging correlates of isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation in WHO high-grade astrocytomas. J Pers Med 2022;13:72 doi:10.3390/jpm13010072 pmid:36675733

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Gemini L,
    2. Tortora M,
    3. Giordano P, et al

    . Vasari scoring system in discerning between different degrees of glioma and IDH status prediction: a possible machine learning application? J Imaging 2023;9:75 doi:10.3390/jimaging9040075

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. You W,
    2. Mao Y,
    3. Jiao X, et al

    . The combination of radiomics features and VASARI standard to predict glioma grade. Front Oncol 2023;13:1083216 doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1083216 pmid:37035137

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Andersen BM,
    2. Miranda C,
    3. Hatzoglou V, et al

    . Leptomeningeal metastases in glioma: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center experience. Neurology 2019;92:e2483–91 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007529 pmid:31019097

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Page MJ,
    2. McKenzie JE,
    3. Bossuyt PM, et al

    . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 2021;88:105906 doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 pmid:33789826

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Salameh J-P,
    2. Bossuyt PM,
    3. McGrath TA, et al

    . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist. BMJ 2020;370:m2632 doi:10.1136/bmj.m2632 pmid:32816740

    FREE Full Text
42. 42.↵
    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
43. 43.↵
    1. Saul L,
    2. Weiss Y,
    3. Bottou L

    1. Cortes C,
    2. Mohri M

    . Confidence Intervals for the Area Under the ROC Curve. In: Saul L, Weiss Y, Bottou L, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.Vol 17. MIT Press; 2004
44. 44.↵
    1. Higgins J,
    2. Thomas J,
    3. Miranda JC, et al

    . Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook#how-to-access. Accessed December 28, 2023
45. 45.↵
    1. Thomas RP,
    2. Xu LW,
    3. Lober RM, et al

    . The incidence and significance of multiple lesions in glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2013;112:91–97 doi:10.1007/s11060-012-1030-1 pmid:23354652

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    1. Lim DA,
    2. Cha S,
    3. Mayo MC, et al

    . Relationship of glioblastoma multiforme to neural stem cell regions predicts invasive and multifocal tumor phenotype. Neuro Oncol 2007;9:424–29 doi:10.1215/15228517-2007-023 pmid:17622647

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    1. Kurokawa R,
    2. Kurokawa M,
    3. Baba A, et al

    . Major changes in 2021 World Health Organization Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors. Radiographics 2022;42:1474–93 doi:10.1148/rg.210236 pmid:35802502

    CrossRefPubMed