Glioblastoma and radiotherapy: A multicenter AI study for Survival Predictions from MRI (GRASP study).

BACKGROUND: The aim was to predict survival of glioblastoma at 8 months after radiotherapy (a period allowing for completing a typical course of adjuvant temozolomide), by applying deep learning to the first brain MRI after radiotherapy completion. METHODS: Retrospective and prospective data were collected from 206 consecutive glioblastoma, isocitrate dehydrogenase -wildtype patients diagnosed between March 2014 and February 2022 across 11 UK centers. Models were trained on 158 retrospective patients from 3 centers. Holdout test sets were retrospective (n = 19; internal validation), and prospective (n = 29; external validation from 8 distinct centers). Neural network branches for T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted inputs were concatenated to predict survival. A nonimaging branch (demographics/MGMT/treatment data) was also combined with the imaging model. We investigated the influence of individual MR sequences; nonimaging features; and weighted dense blocks pretrained for abnormality detection. RESULTS: The imaging model outperformed the nonimaging model in all test sets (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, AUC P = .038) and performed similarly to a combined imaging/nonimaging model (P > .05). Imaging, nonimaging, and combined models applied to amalgamated test sets gave AUCs of 0.93, 0.79, and 0.91. Initializing the imaging model with pretrained weights from 10 000s of brain MRIs improved performance considerably (amalgamated test sets without pretraining 0.64; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: A deep learning model using MRI images after radiotherapy reliably and accurately determined survival of glioblastoma. The model serves as a prognostic biomarker identifying patients who will not survive beyond a typical course of adjuvant temozolomide, thereby stratifying patients into those who might require early second-line or clinical trial treatment.

Overcoming challenges of translating deep-learning models for glioblastoma: the ZGBM consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To report imaging protocol and scheduling variance in routine care of glioblastoma patients in order to demonstrate challenges of integrating deep-learning models in glioblastoma care pathways. Additionally, to understand the most common imaging studies and image contrasts to inform the development of potentially robust deep-learning models. METHODS: MR imaging data were analysed from a random sample of five patients from the prospective cohort across five participating sites of the ZGBM consortium. Reported clinical and treatment data alongside DICOM header information were analysed to understand treatment pathway imaging schedules. RESULTS: All sites perform all structural imaging at every stage in the pathway except for the presurgical study, where in some sites only contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging is performed. Diffusion MRI is the most common non-structural imaging type, performed at every site. CONCLUSION: The imaging protocol and scheduling varies across the UK, making it challenging to develop machine-learning models that could perform robustly at other centres. Structural imaging is performed most consistently across all centres. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Successful translation of deep-learning models will likely be based on structural post-treatment imaging unless there is significant effort made to standardise non-structural or peri-operative imaging protocols and schedules.

Natural history of familial cerebral cavernous malformation syndrome in children: a multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: There is limited data concerning neuroimaging findings and longitudinal evaluation of familial cerebral cavernous malformations (FCCM) in children. Our aim was to study the natural history of pediatric FCCM, with an emphasis on symptomatic hemorrhagic events and associated clinical and imaging risk factors. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all children diagnosed with FCCM in four tertiary pediatric hospitals between January 2010 and March 2022. Subjects with first available brain MRI and [Formula: see text] 3 months of clinical follow-up were included. Neuroimaging studies were reviewed, and clinical data collected. Annual symptomatic hemorrhage risk rates and cumulative risks were calculated using survival analysis and predictors of symptomatic hemorrhagic identified using regression analysis. RESULTS: Forty-one children (53.7% males) were included, of whom 15 (36.3%) presenting with symptomatic hemorrhage. Seven symptomatic hemorrhages occurred during 140.5 person-years of follow-up, yielding a 5-year annual hemorrhage rate of 5.0% per person-year. The 1-, 2-, and 5-year cumulative risks of symptomatic hemorrhage were 7.3%, 14.6%, and 17.1%, respectively. The latter was higher in children with prior symptomatic hemorrhage (33.3%), CCM2 genotype (33.3%), and positive family history (20.7%). Number of brainstem (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.37, P = 0.005) and posterior fossa (adjusted HR = 1.64, P = 0.004) CCM at first brain MRI were significant independent predictors of prospective symptomatic hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: The 5-year annual and cumulative symptomatic hemorrhagic risk in our pediatric FCCM cohort equals the overall risk described in children and adults with all types of CCM. Imaging features at first brain MRI may help to predict potential symptomatic hemorrhage at 5-year follow-up.

Spinal involvement in pediatric familial cavernous malformation syndrome.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence and characteristics of spinal cord cavernous malformations (SCCM) and intraosseous spinal vascular malformations (ISVM) in a pediatric familial cerebral cavernous malformation (FCCM) cohort and evaluate clinico-radiological differences between children with (SCCM +) and without (SCCM-) SCCM. METHODS: All patients with a pediatric diagnosis of FCCM evaluated at three tertiary pediatric hospitals between January 2010 and August 2021 with [Formula: see text] 1 whole spine MR available were included. Brain and spine MR studies were retrospectively evaluated, and clinical and genetic data collected. Comparisons between SCCM + and SCCM- groups were performed using student-t/Mann-Whitney or Fisher exact tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: Thirty-one children (55% boys) were included. Baseline spine MR was performed (mean age = 9.7 years) following clinical manifestations in one subject (3%) and as a screening strategy in the remainder. Six SCCM were detected in five patients (16%), in the cervico-medullary junction (n = 1), cervical (n = 3), and high thoracic (n = 2) regions, with one appearing during follow-up. A tendency towards an older age at first spine MR (P = 0.14) and [Formula: see text] 1 posterior fossa lesion (P = 0.13) was observed in SCCM + patients, lacking statistical significance. No subject demonstrated ISVM. CONCLUSION: Although rarely symptomatic, SCCM can be detected in up to 16% of pediatric FCCM patients using diverse spine MR protocols and may appear de novo. ISVM were instead absent in our cohort. Given the relative commonality of asymptomatic SCCM, serial screening spine MR should be considered in FCCM starting in childhood.

Imaging Biomarkers of Glioblastoma Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Machine Learning Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Monitoring biomarkers using machine learning (ML) may determine glioblastoma treatment response. We systematically reviewed quality and performance accuracy of recently published studies. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Diagnostic Test Accuracy, we extracted articles from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Register between 09/2018-01/2021. Included study participants were adults with glioblastoma having undergone standard treatment (maximal resection, radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide), and follow-up imaging to determine treatment response status (specifically, distinguishing progression/recurrence from progression/recurrence mimics, the target condition). Using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Two/Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging, we assessed bias risk and applicability concerns. We determined test set performance accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1-score, balanced accuracy). We used a bivariate random-effect model to determine pooled sensitivity, specificity, area-under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC-AUC). Pooled measures of balanced accuracy, positive/negative likelihood ratios (PLR/NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. PROSPERO registered (CRD42021261965). RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included (1335/384 patients for training/testing respectively). Small patient numbers, high bias risk, applicability concerns (particularly confounding in reference standard and patient selection) and low level of evidence, allow limited conclusions from studies. Ten studies (10/18, 56%) included in meta-analysis gave 0.769 (0.649-0.858) sensitivity [pooled (95% CI)]; 0.648 (0.749-0.532) specificity; 0.706 (0.623-0.779) balanced accuracy; 2.220 (1.560-3.140) PLR; 0.366 (0.213-0.572) NLR; 6.670 (2.800-13.500) DOR; 0.765 ROC-AUC. CONCLUSION: ML models using MRI features to distinguish between progression and mimics appear to demonstrate good diagnostic performance. However, study quality and design require improvement.

A Position Statement on the Utility of Interval Imaging in Standard of Care Brain Tumour Management: Defining the Evidence Gap and Opportunities for Future Research.

OBJECTIV E: To summarise current evidence for the utility of interval imaging in monitoring disease in adult brain tumours, and to develop a position for future evidence gathering while incorporating the application of data science and health economics. METHODS: Experts in 'interval imaging' (imaging at pre-planned time-points to assess tumour status); data science; health economics, trial management of adult brain tumours, and patient representatives convened in London, UK. The current evidence on the use of interval imaging for monitoring brain tumours was reviewed. To improve the evidence that interval imaging has a role in disease management, we discussed specific themes of data science, health economics, statistical considerations, patient and carer perspectives, and multi-centre study design. Suggestions for future studies aimed at filling knowledge gaps were discussed. RESULTS: Meningioma and glioma were identified as priorities for interval imaging utility analysis. The "monitoring biomarkers" most commonly used in adult brain tumour patients were standard structural MRI features. Interval imaging was commonly scheduled to provide reported imaging prior to planned, regular clinic visits. There is limited evidence relating interval imaging in the absence of clinical deterioration to management change that alters morbidity, mortality, quality of life, or resource use. Progression-free survival is confounded as an outcome measure when using structural MRI in glioma. Uncertainty from imaging causes distress for some patients and their caregivers, while for others it provides an important indicator of disease activity. Any study design that changes imaging regimens should consider the potential for influencing current or planned therapeutic trials, ensure that opportunity costs are measured, and capture indirect benefits and added value. CONCLUSION: Evidence for the value, and therefore utility, of regular interval imaging is currently lacking. Ongoing collaborative efforts will improve trial design and generate the evidence to optimise monitoring imaging biomarkers in standard of care brain tumour management.

Glioblastoma post-operative imaging in neuro-oncology: current UK practice (GIN CUP study).

OBJECTIVES: MRI remains the preferred imaging investigation for glioblastoma. Appropriate and timely neuroimaging in the follow-up period is considered to be important in making management decisions. There is a paucity of evidence-based information in current UK, European and international guidelines regarding the optimal timing and type of neuroimaging following initial neurosurgical treatment. This study assessed the current imaging practices amongst UK neuro-oncology centres, thus providing baseline data and informing future practice. METHODS: The lead neuro-oncologist, neuroradiologist and neurosurgeon from every UK neuro-oncology centre were invited to complete an online survey. Participants were asked about current and ideal imaging practices following initial treatment. RESULTS: Ninety-two participants from all 31 neuro-oncology centres completed the survey (100% response rate). Most centres routinely performed an early post-operative MRI (87%, 27/31), whereas only a third performed a pre-radiotherapy MRI (32%, 10/31). The number and timing of scans routinely performed during adjuvant TMZ treatment varied widely between centres. At the end of the adjuvant period, most centres performed an MRI (71%, 22/31), followed by monitoring scans at 3 monthly intervals (81%, 25/31). Additional short-interval imaging was carried out in cases of possible pseudoprogression in most centres (71%, 22/31). Routine use of advanced imaging was infrequent; however, the addition of advanced sequences was the most popular suggestion for ideal imaging practice, followed by changes in the timing of EPMRI. CONCLUSION: Variations in neuroimaging practices exist after initial glioblastoma treatment within the UK. Multicentre, longitudinal, prospective trials are needed to define the optimal imaging schedule for assessment. KEY POINTS: • Variations in imaging practices exist in the frequency, timing and type of interval neuroimaging after initial treatment of glioblastoma within the UK. • Large, multicentre, longitudinal, prospective trials are needed to define the optimal imaging schedule for assessment.