Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Sep;20(9):1381-1389.
doi: 10.3348/kjr.2018.0814.

Radiomics MRI Phenotyping with Machine Learning to Predict the Grade of Lower-Grade Gliomas: A Study Focused on Nonenhancing Tumors

Affiliations

Radiomics MRI Phenotyping with Machine Learning to Predict the Grade of Lower-Grade Gliomas: A Study Focused on Nonenhancing Tumors

Yae Won Park et al. Korean J Radiol. 2019 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether radiomics features derived from multiparametric MRI can predict the tumor grade of lower-grade gliomas (LGGs; World Health Organization grade II and grade III) and the nonenhancing LGG subgroup.

Materials and methods: Two-hundred four patients with LGGs from our institutional cohort were allocated to training (n = 136) and test (n = 68) sets. Postcontrast T1-weighted images, T2-weighted images, and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images were analyzed to extract 250 radiomics features. Various machine learning classifiers were trained using the radiomics features to predict the glioma grade. The trained classifiers were internally validated on the institutional test set and externally validated on a separate cohort (n = 99) from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Classifier performance was assessed by determining the area under the curve (AUC) from receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. An identical process was performed in the nonenhancing LGG subgroup (institutional training set, n = 73; institutional test set, n = 37; and TCGA cohort, n = 37) to predict the glioma grade.

Results: The performance of the best classifier was good in the internal validation set (AUC, 0.85) and fair in the external validation set (AUC, 0.72) to predict the LGG grade. For the nonenhancing LGG subgroup, the performance of the best classifier was good in the internal validation set (AUC, 0.82), but poor in the external validation set (AUC, 0.68).

Conclusion: Radiomics feature-based classifiers may be useful to predict LGG grades. However, radiomics classifiers may have a limited value when applied to the nonenhancing LGG subgroup in a TCGA cohort.

Keywords: Grade; Lower-grade glioma; Magnetic resonance imaging; Radiomics; The Cancer Genome Atlas.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Patient enrollment process for entire LGG group and nonenhancing LGG subgroup in (A) institutional cohort and (B) TCGA cohort.
FLAIR = fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, LGG = lower-grade glioma, TCGA = The Cancer Genome Atlas, TCIA = The Cancer Imaging Archive, T1C = contrast-enhanced T1-weighted
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Workflow of image processing, radiomics feature extraction, and machine learning.
GLCM = gray level co-occurrence matrix, GLRLM = gray level run-length matrix, GLSZM = gray level size zone matrix, ROC = receiver operating characteristic
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Heatmap of AUC values.
Heat map of AUC values from machine learning classifier to predict grade (A) in entire LGG group in internal validation for institutional test set (n = 136) after training on institutional training set (n = 68) and entire LGG group in external validation for TCGA validation set (n = 99) after training on entire institutional cohort (n = 204); and (B) in nonenhancing LGG subgroup in internal validation for institutional test set (n = 73) after training on institutional training set (n = 37) and nonenhancing LGG subgroup in external validation on TCGA cohort (n = 37) after training on entire nonenhancing institutional cohort (n = 110). AUC = area under curve, GBM = gradient boosting machine, LDA = linear discriminant analysis, RF = random forest, RFE = recursive feature elimination, ROSE = random over-sampling examples, SMOTE = synthetic minority over-sampling technique

References

    1. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Brat DJ, Verhaak RG, Aldape KD, Yung WK, Salama SR, Cooper LA, et al. Comprehensive, integrative genomic analysis of diffuse lower-grade gliomas. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2481–2498. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, Figarella-Branger D, Cavenee WK, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131:803–820. - PubMed
    1. Rollin N, Guyotat J, Streichenberger N, Honnorat J, Tran Minh VA, Cotton F. Clinical relevance of diffusion and perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in assessing intra-axial brain tumors. Neuroradiology. 2006;48:150–159. - PubMed
    1. Lee EJ, Lee SK, Agid R, Bae JM, Keller A, Terbrugge K. Preoperative grading of presumptive low-grade astrocytomas on MR imaging: diagnostic value of minimum apparent diffusion coefficient. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:1872–1877. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Olar A, Wani KM, Alfaro-Munoz KD, Heathcock LE, van Thuijl HF, Gilbert MR, et al. IDH mutation status and role of WHO grade and mitotic index in overall survival in grade II–III diffuse gliomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129:585–596. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types