Deep Learning of Time–Signal Intensity Curves from Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Imaging Enables Tissue Labeling and Prediction of Survival in Glioblastoma

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Friedmann-Morvinski D

   . Glioblastoma heterogeneity and cancer cell plasticity. Crit Rev Oncog 2014;19:327–36 doi:10.1615/critrevoncog.2014011777 pmid:25404148

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Qazi MA,
   2. Vora P,
   3. Venugopal C, et al

   . Intratumoral heterogeneity: pathways to treatment resistance and relapse in human glioblastoma. Ann Oncol 2017;28:1448–56 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx169 pmid:28407030

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Das S,
   2. Marsden PA

   . Angiogenesis in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1561–63 doi:10.1056/NEJMcibr1309402 pmid:24131182

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Hardee ME,
   2. Zagzag D

   . Mechanisms of glioma-associated neovascularization. Am J Pathol 2012;181:1126–41 doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2012.06.030 pmid:22858156

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Jo SW,
   2. Choi SH,
   3. Lee EJ, et al

   . Prognostic prediction based on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MRI parameters from non-enhancing, T2-high-signal-intensity lesions in patients with glioblastoma. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:1369 doi:10.3348/kjr.2020.1272 pmid:33987994

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Kelly PJ,
   2. Daumas-Duport C,
   3. Kispert DB, et al

   . Imaging-based stereotaxic serial biopsies in untreated intracranial glial neoplasms. J Neurosurg 1987;66:865–74 doi:10.3171/jns.1987.66.6.0865 pmid:3033172

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Zhang J,
   2. Liu H,
   3. Tong H, et al

   . Clinical applications of contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI techniques in gliomas: recent advances and current challenges. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2017;2017:7064120 doi:10.1155/2017/7064120 pmid:29097933

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Kickingereder P,
   2. Wiestler B,
   3. Burth S, et al

   . Relative cerebral blood volume is a potential predictive imaging biomarker of bevacizumab efficacy in recurrent glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:1139–47 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov028 pmid:25754089

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Law M,
   2. Young RJ,
   3. Babb JS, et al

   . Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2008;247:490–98 doi:10.1148/radiol.2472070898 pmid:18349315

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Juan-Albarracín J,
    2. Fuster-Garcia E,
    3. Pérez-Girbés A, et al

    . Glioblastoma: vascular habitats detected at preoperative dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging predict survival. Radiology 2018;287:944–54 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017170845 pmid:29357274

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Jain R,
    2. Poisson LM,
    3. Gutman D, et al

    . Outcome prediction in patients with glioblastoma by using imaging, clinical, and genomic biomarkers: focus on the nonenhancing component of the tumor. Radiology 2014;272:484–93 doi:10.1148/radiol.14131691 pmid:24646147

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Park JE,
    2. Kim HS,
    3. Lee J, et al

    . Deep-learned time–signal intensity pattern analysis using an autoencoder captures magnetic resonance perfusion heterogeneity for brain tumor differentiation. Sci Rep 2020;10:1–11 doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78485-x pmid:33293590

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Creswell A,
    2. Bharath AA

    . Denoising adversarial autoencoders. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 2019;30:968–84 doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2018.2852738 pmid:30130236

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Bank D,
    2. Koenigstein N,
    3. Giryes R

    . Autoencoders. April 3, 2021. arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.05991. Accessed June 29, 2022
15. 15.↵
    1. Hinton GE,
    2. Salakhutdinov RR

    . Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science 2006;313:504–07 doi:10.1126/science.1127647 pmid:16873662

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Ranzato MA,
    2. Huang FJ,
    3. Boureau Y-L, et al

    . Unsupervised learning of invariant feature hierarchies with applications to object recognition. 2007 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Minneapolis, Minnesota. June 17, 2007:1–8
17. 17.↵
    1. Stupp R,
    2. Mason WP,
    3. van den Bent MJ, et al

    ; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005;352:987–96 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043330 pmid:15758009

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Roa W,
    2. Brasher PM,
    3. Bauman G, et al

    . Abbreviated course of radiation therapy in older patients with glioblastoma multiforme: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1583–88 doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.06.082 pmid:15051755

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Rousseeuw PJ

    . Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math 1987;20:53–65 doi:10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Akbari H,
    2. Macyszyn L,
    3. Da X, et al

    . Pattern analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging demonstrates peritumoral tissue heterogeneity. Radiology 2014;273:502–10 doi:10.1148/radiol.14132458 pmid:24955928

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Park YW,
    2. Park JE,
    3. Ahn SS, et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging parameters for noninvasive prediction of epidermal growth factor receptor amplification in isocitrate dehydrogenase-wild-type lower-grade gliomas: a multicenter study. Neurosurgery 2021;89:257–65 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyab136 pmid:33913501

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Cha S,
    2. Lupo JM,
    3. Chen MH, et al

    . Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme and single brain metastasis by peak height and percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1078–84 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0484 pmid:17569962

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    1. Mangla R,
    2. Kolar B,
    3. Zhu T, et al

    . Percentage signal recovery derived from MR dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging is useful to differentiate common enhancing malignant lesions of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1004–10 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2441 pmid:21511863

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Ashburner J,
    2. Friston KJ

    . Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 2005;26:839–51 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.018 pmid:15955494

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Ingrisch M,
    2. Schneider MJ,
    3. Norenberg D, et al

    . Radiomic analysis reveals prognostic information in T1-weighted baseline magnetic resonance imaging in patients with glioblastoma. Invest Radiol 2017;52:360–66 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000349 pmid:28079702

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Parsa AT,
    2. Wachhorst S,
    3. Lamborn KR, et al

    . Prognostic significance of intracranial dissemination of glioblastoma multiforme in adults. J Neurosurg 2005;102:622–28 doi:10.3171/jns.2005.102.4.0622 pmid:15871503

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    1. Stecco A,
    2. Pisani C,
    3. Quarta R, et al

    . DTI and PWI analysis of peri-enhancing tumoral brain tissue in patients treated for glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2011;102:261–71 doi:10.1007/s11060-010-0310-x pmid:20658351

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    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
29. 29.↵
    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
30. 30.↵
    1. Lee J,
    2. Jain R,
    3. Khalil K, et al

    . Texture feature ratios from relative CBV maps of perfusion MRI are associated with patient survival in glioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:37–43 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4534 pmid:26471746

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    1. Choi KS,
    2. Choi SH,
    3. Jeong B

    . Prediction of IDH genotype in gliomas with dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging using an explainable recurrent neural network. Neuro Oncol 2019;21:1197–209 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noz095 pmid:31127834

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Bakas S,
    2. Akbari H,
    3. Pisapia J, et al

    . In vivo detection of EGFRvIII in glioblastoma via perfusion magnetic resonance imaging signature consistent with deep peritumoral infiltration: the φ-index. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23:4724–34 doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1871 pmid:28428190

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    1. Ishii A,
    2. Kimura T,
    3. Sadahiro H, et al

    . Histological characterization of the tumorigenic “peri-necrotic niche” harboring quiescent stem-like tumor cells in glioblastoma. PLoS One 2016;11:e0147366 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147366 pmid:26799577

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Lee MD,
    2. Baird GL,
    3. Bell LC, et al

    . Utility of percentage signal recovery and baseline signal in DSC-MRI optimized for relative CBV measurement for differentiating glioblastoma, lymphoma, metastasis, and meningioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:1445–50 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6153 pmid:31371360

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
35. 35.↵
    1. French A,
    2. Macedo M,
    3. Poulsen J, et al

    . Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). 2008