Radiomics-Based Differentiation of Glioblastoma and Metastatic Disease: Impact of Different T1-Contrast-Enhanced Sequences on Radiomics Features and Model Performance

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Ostrom QT,
   2. Cioffi G,
   3. Gittleman H, et al

   . CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2012-2016. Neuro Oncol 2019;21:v1–100 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noz150 pmid:31675094

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Priya S,
   2. Liu Y,
   3. Ward C, et al

   . Machine learning based differentiation of glioblastoma from brain metastasis using MRI derived radiomics. Sci Rep 2021;11:10478 doi:10.1038/s41598-021-90032-w pmid:34006893

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Bae S,
   2. An C,
   3. Ahn SS, et al

   . Robust performance of deep learning for distinguishing glioblastoma from single brain metastasis using radiomic features: model development and validation. Sci Rep 2020;10:12110 doi:10.1038/s41598-020-68980-6 pmid:32694637

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Cagney DN,
   2. Martin AM,
   3. Catalano PJ, et al

   . Incidence and prognosis of patients with brain metastases at diagnosis of systemic malignancy: a population-based study. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:1511–21 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox077 pmid:28444227

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   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
6. 6.↵
   1. Li Y,
   2. Liu Y,
   3. Liang Y, et al

   . Radiomics can differentiate high-grade glioma from brain metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2022;32:8039–51 doi:10.1007/s00330-022-08828-x pmid:35587827

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Danieli L,
   2. Riccitelli GC,
   3. Distefano D, et al

   . Brain tumor-enhancement visualization and morphometric assessment: a comparison of MPRAGE, SPACE, and VIBE MRI techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:1140–48 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6096 pmid:31221635

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Fu Q,
   2. Cheng QG,
   3. Kong XC, et al

   . Comparison of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging using DANTE-SPACE, PETRA, and MPRAGE: a clinical evaluation of brain tumors at 3 Tesla. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2022;12:592–607 doi:10.21037/qims-21-107 pmid:34993104

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Smith SM,
   2. Brady JM

   . SUSAN: a new approach to low level image processing. Int J Comput Vis 1997;23:45–78 doi:10.1023/A:1007963824710

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Avants BB,
    2. Tustison N,
    3. Song G

    . Advanced normalization tools (ANTS). Insight J 2009;2:1–35 doi:10.54294/uvnhin

    CrossRef
11. 11.↵
    1. Gorgolewski K,
    2. Burns CD,
    3. Madison C, et al

    . Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing framework in python. Front Neuroinform 2011;5:13 doi:10.3389/fninf.2011.00013 pmid:21897815

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Jenkinson M,
    2. Beckmann CF,
    3. Behrens TE, et al

    . FSL. Neuroimage 2012;62:782–90 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015 pmid:21979382

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Smith SM,
    2. Jenkinson M,
    3. Woolrich MW, et al

    . Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage 2004;23(Suppl 1):S208–19 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051 pmid:15501092

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Woolrich MW,
    2. Jbabdi S,
    3. Patenaude B, et al

    . Bayesian analysis of neuroimaging data in FSL. Neuroimage 2009;45:S173–86 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.055 pmid:19059349

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Yin Y,
    2. Zhang X,
    3. Williams R, et al

    . LOGISMOS–layered optimal graph image segmentation of multiple objects and surfaces: cartilage segmentation in the knee joint. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010;29:2023–37 doi:10.1109/TMI.2010.2058861 pmid:20643602

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    1. Priya S,
    2. Liu Y,
    3. Ward C, et al

    . Radiomic based machine learning performance for a three class problem in neuro-oncology: time to test the waters? Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:2568 doi:10.3390/cancers13112568 pmid:34073840

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. van Griethuysen JJ,
    2. Fedorov A,
    3. Parmar C, et al

    . Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res 2017;77:e104–07 doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0339 pmid:29092951

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Johnson WE,
    2. Li C,
    3. Rabinovic A

    . Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. Biostatistics 2007;8:118–27 doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxj037 pmid:16632515

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Orlhac F,
    2. Frouin F,
    3. Nioche C, et al

    . Validation of a method to compensate multicenter effects affecting CT radiomics. Radiology 2019;291:53–59 doi:10.1148/radiol.2019182023 pmid:30694160

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Fortin J

    . Harmonization of Multi-Site Imaging Data with ComBat. R Package Version 1.0.9.
21. 21.↵
    1. Fortin JP,
    2. Parker D,
    3. Tunc B, et al

    . Harmonization of multi-site diffusion tensor imaging data. Neuroimage 2017;161:149–70 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.047 pmid:28826946

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
23. 23.↵
    1. Mongan J,
    2. Moy L,
    3. Kahn C

    . Checklist for artificial intelligence in medical imaging (CLAIM): a guide for authors and reviewers. Radiol Artif Intell 2020;2:e200029 doi:10.1148/ryai.2020200029 pmid:33937821

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Ammari S,
    2. Pitre-Champagnat S,
    3. Dercle L, et al

    . Influence of magnetic field strength on magnetic resonance imaging radiomics features in brain imaging, an in vitro and in vivo study. Front Oncol 2020;10:541663 doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.541663 pmid:33552944

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Carre A,
    2. Klausner G,
    3. Edjlali M, et al

    . Standardization of brain MR images across machines and protocols: bridging the gap for MRI-based radiomics. Sci Rep 2020;10:12340 doi:10.1038/s41598-020-69298-z pmid:32704007

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Ford J,
    2. Dogan N,
    3. Young L, et al

    . Quantitative radiomics: impact of pulse sequence parameter selection on MRI-based textural features of the brain. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2018;2018:1729071 doi:10.1155/2018/1729071 pmid:30154684

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Mayerhoefer ME,
    2. Szomolanyi P,
    3. Jirak D, et al

    . Effects of MRI acquisition parameter variations and protocol heterogeneity on the results of texture analysis and pattern discrimination: an application-oriented study. Med Phys 2009;36:1236–43 doi:10.1118/1.3081408

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Traverso A,
    2. Wee L,
    3. Dekker A, et al

    . Repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features: a systematic review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018;102:1143–58 doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.05.053 pmid:30170872

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Soni N,
    2. Priya S,
    3. Bathla G

    . Texture analysis in cerebral gliomas: a review of the literature. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:928–34 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6075 pmid:31122918

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    1. van der Reijd DJ,
    2. Chupetlovska K,
    3. van Dijk E, et al

    . Multi-sequence MRI radiomics of colorectal liver metastases: which features are reproducible across readers? Eur J Radiol 2024;172:111346 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111346 pmid:38309217

    CrossRefPubMed