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
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Dec 17;166(1):505.
doi: 10.1007/s00701-024-06344-z.

Machine learning for predicting post-operative outcomes in meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Machine learning for predicting post-operative outcomes in meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Siraj Y Abualnaja et al. Acta Neurochir (Wien). .

Abstract

Purpose: Meningiomas are the most common primary brain tumour and account for over one-third of cases. Traditionally, estimations of morbidity and mortality following surgical resection have depended on subjective assessments of various factors, including tumour volume, location, WHO grade, extent of resection (Simpson grade) and pre-existing co-morbidities, an approach fraught with subjective variability. This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the efficacy with which machine learning (ML) algorithms predict post-operative outcomes in meningioma patients.

Methods: A literature search was conducted in December 2023 by two independent reviewers through PubMed, DARE, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS electronic databases. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted.

Results: Systematic searches yielded 32 studies, comprising 142,459 patients and 139,043 meningiomas. Random-effects meta-analysis sought to generate restricted maximum-likelihood estimates for the accuracy of alternate ML algorithms in predicting several postoperative outcomes. ML models incorporating both clinical and radiomic data significantly outperformed models utilizing either data type alone as well as traditional methods. Pooled estimates for the AUCs achieved by different ML algorithms ranged from 0.74-0.81 in the prediction of overall survival and progression-/recurrence-free survival, with ensemble classifiers demonstrating particular promise for future clinical application. Additionally, current ML models may exhibit a bias in predictive accuracy towards female patients, presumably due to the higher prevalence of meningiomas in females.

Conclusion: This review underscores the potential of ML to improve the accuracy of prognoses for meningioma patients and provides insight into which model classes offer the greatest potential for predicting survival outcomes. However, future research will have to directly compare standardized ML methodologies to traditional approaches in large-scale, prospective studies, before their clinical utility can be confidently validated.

Keywords: Machine learning; Meningioma; Postoperative outcomes; Predictive accuracy; Survival prognosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethical approval: No ethical approval was sought for this review. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA Diagram representing the inclusion and exclusion of the studies selected for this review
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve stratified by the outcome to be predicted using ML algorithms. Weights are given with respect to each outcome. Where the same paper is included multiple times, each estimate is discriminated by the time course of outcome prediction in months, the ML algorithm employed or the modality of the input data
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve stratified by the class of ML algorithm employed in outcome prediction. Weights are given with respect to each class. Where the same paper is included multiple times, each estimate is discriminated by the time course of outcome prediction in months, the ML algorithm employed or the modality of the input data. Note that LightGBM and XGBoost are two alternate gradient boosting algorithms
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
a Meta-regression % total resection. b assessment of heteroscedasticity
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
a Meta-regression % total resection. b meta-regression % total resection
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Auxillary linear regression
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Funnel plot demonstrating the high risk of publication bias

References

    1. Agopiantz M, Carnot M, Denis C, Martin E, Gauchotte G (2023) Hormone receptor expression in meningiomas: a systematic review. Cancers (Basel) 15:980. 10.3390/cancers15030980 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Burkhardt J-K, Zinn PO, Graenicher M, Santillan A, Bozinov O, Kasper EM, Krayenbühl N (2011) Predicting postoperative hydrocephalus in 227 patients with skull base meningioma. Neurosurg Focus 30:E9. 10.3171/2011.3.FOCUS117 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cai L, Yang Z, Song D, Luo M (2023) Nomogram model for predicting the overall survival of patients with meningiomas: a retrospective cohort study. World Neurosurg 171:e309–e322. 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.12.019 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen X, Wang G, Zhang J, Zhang G, Lin Y, Lin Z, Gu J, Kang D, Ding C (2020) A novel scoring system based on preoperative routine blood test in predicting prognosis of atypical meningioma. Front Oncol 10:1705. 10.3389/fonc.2020.01705 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chotai S, Yan Y, Stewart T, Morone PJ (2023) Clinical tool for prognostication of discharge outcomes following craniotomy for meningioma. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 231:107838. 10.1016/j.clineuro.2023.107838 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources