Clinical application of machine-based deep learning in patients with radiologically presumed adult-type diffuse glioma grades 2 or 3

Radiologically presumed diffuse lower-grade glioma (dLGG) are typically non or minimal enhancing tumors, with hyperintensity in T2w-images. The aim of this study was to test the clinical usefulness of deep learning (DL) in mutation prediction in patients with radiologically presumed dLGG. Three hund...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neuro-oncology advances 2024, Vol.6 (1), p.vdae192
Hauptverfasser: Gómez Vecchio, Tomás, Neimantaite, Alice, Thurin, Erik, Furtner, Julia, Solheim, Ole, Pallud, Johan, Berger, Mitchel, Widhalm, Georg, Bartek, Jiri, Häggström, Ida, Gu, Irene Y H, Jakola, Asgeir Store
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Radiologically presumed diffuse lower-grade glioma (dLGG) are typically non or minimal enhancing tumors, with hyperintensity in T2w-images. The aim of this study was to test the clinical usefulness of deep learning (DL) in mutation prediction in patients with radiologically presumed dLGG. Three hundred and fourteen patients were retrospectively recruited from 6 neurosurgical departments in Sweden, Norway, France, Austria, and the United States. Collected data included patients' age, sex, tumor molecular characteristics ( , and 1p19q), and routine preoperative radiological images. A clinical model was built using multivariable logistic regression with the variables age and tumor location. DL models were built using MRI data only, and 4 DL architectures used in glioma research. In the final validation test, the clinical model and the best DL model were scored on an external validation cohort with 155 patients from the Erasmus Glioma Dataset. The mean age in the recruited and external cohorts was 45.0 (SD 14.3) and 44.3 years (SD 14.6). The cohorts were rather similar, except for sex distribution (53.5% vs 64.5% males, -value = .03) and status (30.9% vs 12.9% wild-type, -value
ISSN:2632-2498
2632-2498
DOI:10.1093/noajnl/vdae192