Nikanpour, Yalda

Abstract Clinical management of IDH wildtype glioblastoma (GBM) and tumefactive multiple sclerosis (tMS) is drastically different. GBM requires maximal safe resection followed by chemoradiation, while tMS outcome is worsened by surgery and radiotherapy. Misdiagnosis of brain lesions may expose patients to unnecessary anxiety, surgery, or radiotherapy. Noninvasive methods to help with accurate diagnosis of tumor and non-tumor etiologies are needed. tMS subjects were identified by the Mayo Clinic Center for Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmune Neurology (CMSAN). GBM subjects were matched to tMS by age at diagnosis, index MRI date, and sex. Inclusion criteria included one cm minimal lesion size and pre-operative post-contrast T1 and T2 images available for analysis. To identify potential experimental design bias, MRI technology and clinical characteristics were compared across groups. A 3D-DenseNet121 was used to develop a classification model using prespecified parameters: 600 epochs, batch size 16, learning rate 10-3, cross entropy loss, and AdamW optimizer. The stopping rule was defined as three sequential epoch cross entropy loss < 0.02. Five-fold cross validation (CV) was utilized to obtain an unbiased estimate of predictive performance (overfitting) and sensitivity of the 3D-DenseNet121 algorithm was evaluated. 224 subjects (114 GBM, 110 tMS) were analyzed: 40% male, median age 46. After one round of CV, the average unbiased estimate of sensitivity and specificity for predicting GBM from the final classification model was 0.86 and 0.73, respectively. To assess the reproducibility of the deep learning algorithm (3D-DenseNet121), the exact same CV folds were rerun resulting in average sensitivity and specificity of 0.82 and 0.75, respectively. Obtaining unbiased estimates of model performance using internal validation is critical before evaluating a final model on an external dataset. Understanding sensitivity of a deep learning algorithm is important for model validity. Differentiation of GBM and tMS appears reasonable with MRI; external validation is in progress.

Abstract Missing MRI sequences are common in radiology due to differences in protocols, time constraints, and image artifacts. Missing sequences are a nuisance for subsequent algorithms, such as automated segmentation algorithms requiring multiple MRI sequences (e.g., HD-GLIO, which requires T2, T1, post-contrast T1 (T1c), and FLAIR). Accurate tumor segmentation is a fundamental step in extracting radiomics analysis to use, for example, to predict the IDH status of glioma or their overall survival. We validated a conditional (pix2pix) and super-resolution GAN (SOUP-GAN) for imputing MRI sequences on 285 adult glioma with complete MRI sequences available. We simulated missing T1 sequences and subsequently imputed them from T1c using pix2pix and from sagittal T1 using SOUP-GAN. Using HD-GLIO, we obtained the true segmentations from the complete MRI sequences. HD-GLIO was also used after replacing the original T1 sequence with the one imputed with pix2pix and SOUP-GAN. Thus, there were three sets of segmentations for each subject. We compared T2 and T1c radiomics features extracted with Pyradiomics using segmentations obtained with complete data with features extracted from segmentation obtained with the imputed T1 sequences using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman (BA) analysis. Median (interquartile range) ICC for shape features extracted from T2 and T1c were 0.82(0.76-0.92) using pix2pix and 0.89(0.86-0.94) using SOUP-GAN. Median ICC for first-order-statistics features were 0.90(0.83-0.93) for T2 and 0.90(0.88-0.92) for T1c using pix2pix, and 0.61(0.22-0.82) for T2 and 0.42(0.34-0.57) for T1c using SOUP-GAN. Median ICC for texture features were 0.86(0.82-0.87) for T2 and 0.87(0.79-0.90) for T1c using pix2pix, and 0.69(0.47-0.81) for T2 and 0.76(0.65-0.83) for T1c using SOUP-GAN. We show that T2 and T1c shape features (e.g., volumetric analysis) can be adequately extracted from segmentations obtained with an algorithm requiring multiple MRI sequences using T1 sequences imputed with GANs; however, the effect of imputation differed for first-order-statistics and texture features.