Abstract

ObjectiveTo identify optimal machine-learning methods for the radiomics-based differentiation of gliosarcoma (GSM) from glioblastoma (GBM).Materials and MethodsThis retrospective study analyzed cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data of 83 patients with pathologically diagnosed GSM (58 men, 25 women; mean age, 50.5 ± 12.9 years; range, 16-77 years) and 100 patients with GBM (58 men, 42 women; mean age, 53.4 ± 14.1 years; range, 12-77 years) and divided them into a training and validation set randomly. Radiomics features were extracted from the tumor mass and peritumoral edema. Three feature selection and classification methods were evaluated in terms of their performance in distinguishing GSM and GBM: the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), Relief, and Random Forest (RF); and adaboost classifier (Ada), support vector machine (SVM), and RF; respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and accuracy (ACC) of each method were analyzed.ResultsBased on tumor mass features, the selection method LASSO + classifier SVM was found to feature the highest AUC (0.85) and ACC (0.77) in the validation set, followed by Relief + RF (AUC = 0.84, ACC = 0.72) and LASSO + RF (AUC = 0.82, ACC = 0.75). Based on peritumoral edema features, Relief + SVM was found to have the highest AUC (0.78) and ACC (0.73) in the validation set. Regardless of the method, tumor mass features significantly outperformed peritumoral edema features in the differentiation of GSM from GBM (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the best radiomics model were superior to those obtained by the neuroradiologists.ConclusionOur radiomics study identified the selection method LASSO combined with the classifier SVM as the optimal method for differentiating GSM from GBM based on tumor mass features.

Highlights

  • Gliosarcoma (GSM), a variant of glioblastoma (GBM), differs from GBM in many respects [1]

  • Patients were excluded if (I) preoperative MR images were not available in our institute; (II) the images were inadequate for image analysis; (III) the lesion showed no enhancement on post-contrast images; or (IV) the lesion was recurrent or had received previous treatment

  • The selection method least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) + classifier support vector machine (SVM) featured the highest area under the curve (AUC) (0.85) and ACC (0.77), followed by those of Relief + Random Forest (RF) (AUC = 0.84, ACC = 0.72) and LASSO + RF (AUC = 0.82, ACC = 0.75). In both the training and validation set, regardless of the method, tumor mass features significantly outperformed those of the peritumoral edema in the differentiation of GSM from GBM (P< 0.05)

Read more

Summary

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study analyzed cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data of 83 patients with pathologically diagnosed GSM (58 men, 25 women; mean age, 50.5 ± 12.9 years; range, 16-77 years) and 100 patients with GBM (58 men, 42 women; mean age, 53.4 ± 14.1 years; range, 12-77 years) and divided them into a training and validation set randomly. Radiomics features were extracted from the tumor mass and peritumoral edema. Three feature selection and classification methods were evaluated in terms of their performance in distinguishing GSM and GBM: the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), Relief, and Random Forest (RF); and adaboost classifier (Ada), support vector machine (SVM), and RF; respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and accuracy (ACC) of each method were analyzed

Results
Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
ETHICS STATEMENT

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.