Estimating Local Cellular Density in Glioma Using MR Imaging Data

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Louis DN,
   2. Perry A,
   3. Reifenberger G, et al

   . The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 2016;131:803–20 doi:10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 pmid:27157931

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Li YM,
   2. Suki D,
   3. Hess K, et al

   . The influence of maximum safe resection of glioblastoma on survival in 1229 patients: can we do better than gross-total resection? J Neurosurg 2016;124:977–88 doi:10.3171/2015.5.JNS142087 pmid:26495941

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Gates EDH,
   2. Lin JS,
   3. Weinberg JS, et al

   . Guiding the first biopsy in patients with gliomas using estimated Ki-67 maps derived from MRI: conventional versus advanced imaging. Neuro Oncol 2019;21:527–36 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noz004 pmid:30657997

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Gates ED,
   2. Lin JS,
   3. Weinberg JS, et al

   . Imaging-based algorithm for the local grading of glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:400–07 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6405 pmid:32029466

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Yankeelov TE,
   2. Pickens DR,
   3. Price RR

   1. Arlinghaus L,
   2. Yankeelov TE

   . Diffusion-Weighted MRI. In: Yankeelov TE, Pickens DR, Price RR, eds. Quantitative MRI in Cancer. Taylor & Francis; 2011:81–98
6. 6.↵
   1. Basser PJ,
   2. Pierpaoli C

   . Microstructural and physiological features of tissues elucidated by quantitative-diffusion-tensor MRI. J Magn Reson B 1996;111:209–19 doi:10.1006/jmrb.1996.0086 pmid:8661285

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Tofts PS,
   2. Brix G,
   3. Buckley DL, et al

   . Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:223–32 doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199909)10:3<223::AID-JMRI2>3.0.CO;2-S pmid:10508281

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Sourbron SP,
   2. Buckley DL

   . Classic models for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. NMR Biomed 2013;26:1004–27 doi:10.1002/nbm.2940 pmid:23674304

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Sung YS,
   2. Park B,
   3. Choi Y, et al

   . Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for oncology drug development. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;44:251–64 doi:10.1002/jmri.25173 pmid:26854494

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Ostergaard L,
    2. Sorensen AG,
    3. Kwong KK, et al

    . High-resolution measurement of cerebral blood flow using intravascular tracer bolus passages, Part II: experimental comparison and preliminary results. Magn Reson Med 1996;36:726–36 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910360511 pmid:8916023

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Østergaard L,
    2. Weisskoff RM,
    3. Chesler DA, et al

    . High-resolution measurement of cerebral blood flow using intravascular tracer bolus passages, Part I: mathematical approach and statistical analysis. Magn Reson Med 1996;36:715–25 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910360510 pmid:8916022

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    1. Boxerman JL,
    2. Schmainda KM,
    3. Weiskoff RM

    . Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:859–67 pmid:16611779

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Avants BB,
    2. Tustison NJ,
    3. Stauffer M, et al

    . The Insight ToolKit image registration framework. Front Neuroinf 2014;8:44 doi:10.3389/fninf.2014.00044 pmid:24817849

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Lin JS,
    2. Fuentes D,
    3. Chandler A, et al

    . Performance assessment for brain MR imaging registration methods. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:973–80 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5122 pmid:28279984

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Avants BB,
    2. Tustison NJ,
    3. Song G, et al

    . A reproducible evaluation of ANTs similarity metric performance in brain image registration. Neuroimage 2011;54:2033–44 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.09.025 pmid:20851191

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    1. Roetzer T,
    2. Leskovar K,
    3. Peter N, et al

    . Evaluating cellularity and structural connectivity on whole brain slides using a custom-made digital pathology pipeline. J Neurosci Methods 2019;311:215–21 doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.10.029 pmid:30365968

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Abercrombie M

    . Estimation of nuclear population from microtome sections. Anat Rec 1946;94:239–47 doi:10.1002/ar.1090940210 pmid:21015608

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Hedreen JC

    . What was wrong with the Abercrombie and empirical cell counting methods? A review. Anat Rec 1998;250:373–80 doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0185(199803)250:3<373::AID-AR12>3.0.CO;2-L pmid:9517854

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Breiman L

    . Random Forests. Mach Learn 2001;45:5–32 doi:10.1023/A:1010933404324

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Aerts HJ,
    2. Velazquez ER,
    3. Leijenaar RT, et al

    . Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 2014;5:4006 doi:10.1038/ncomms5006 pmid:24892406

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Parmar C,
    2. Grossmann P,
    3. Bussink J, et al

    . Machine learning methods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Sci Rep 2015;5:13087 doi:10.1038/srep13087 pmid:26278466

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Kumar V,
    2. Gu Y,
    3. Basu S, et al

    . Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30:1234–48 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.010 pmid:22898692

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Autry A,
    2. Phillips JJ,
    3. Maleschlijski S, et al

    . Characterization of metabolic, diffusion, and perfusion properties in GBM: contrast-enhancing versus non-enhancing tumor. Transl Oncol 2017;10:895–903 doi:10.1016/j.tranon.2017.08.009 pmid:28942218

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Durst CR,
    2. Raghavan P,
    3. Shaffrey ME, et al

    . Multimodal MR imaging model to predict tumor infiltration in patients with gliomas. Neuroradiology 2014;56:107–15 doi:10.1007/s00234-013-1308-9 pmid:24337609

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Gates ED,
    2. Yang J,
    3. Fukumura K, et al

    . Spatial distance correlates with genetic distance in diffuse glioma. Front Oncol 2019;9:676 doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.00676 pmid:31417865

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Sadeghi N,
    2. D’Haene N,
    3. Decaestecker C, et al

    . Apparent diffusion coefficient and cerebral blood volume in brain gliomas: relation to tumor cell density and tumor microvessel density based on stereotactic biopsies. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:476–82 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0851 pmid:18079184

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    1. Barajas RF Jr.,
    2. Phillips JJ,
    3. Parvataneni R, et al

    . Regional variation in histopathologic features of tumor specimens from treatment-naive glioblastoma correlates with anatomic and physiologic MR imaging. Neuro Oncol 2012;14:942–54 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nos128 pmid:22711606

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Heye AK,
    2. Culling RD,
    3. Valdés Hernández M del C, et al

    . Assessment of blood–brain barrier disruption using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a systematic review. Neuroimage Clin 2014;6:262–74 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2014.09.002 pmid:25379439

    CrossRefPubMed