NIMG-46. SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ALGORITHMS USING PRE-THERAPY MR IMAGING FOR GLIOMA MOLECULAR SUBTYPE CLASSIFICATION. (12th November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lost, Jan; Verma, Tej; Tillmanns, Niklas; Brim, W R; Subramanian, Harry; Ikuta, Ichiro; Bronen, Richard; Zucconi, William; Lin, Ming; Bousabarah, Khaled; Johnson, Michele; Cui, Jin; Malhotra, Ajay; Sabel, Michael; Aboian, Mariam
• Is Part Of: Neuro-oncology. Volume 23: Supplement 6(2021)
• Page Start: vi139
• Page End: vi139
• Publication Date: 2021-11-12
• Subjects: Brain Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Brain -- Tumors -- Periodicals; Brain -- Cancer -- Periodicals; Nervous system -- Cancer -- Periodicals; 616.99481
• DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noab196.545
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-8517

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: Identifying molecular subtypes in gliomas has prognostic and therapeutic value, traditionally after invasive neurosurgical tumor resection or biopsy. Recent advances using artificial intelligence (AI) show promise in using pre-therapy imaging for predicting molecular subtype. We performed a systematic review of recent literature on AI methods used to predict molecular subtypes of gliomas. METHODS: Literature review conforming to PRSIMA guidelines was performed for publications prior to February 2021 using 4 databases: Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science core-collection. Keywords included: artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, radiomics, magnetic resonance imaging, glioma, and glioblastoma. Non-machine learning and non-human studies were excluded. Screening was performed using Covidence software. Bias analysis was done using TRIPOD guidelines. RESULTS: 11, 727 abstracts were retrieved. After applying initial screening exclusion criteria, 1, 135 full text reviews were performed, with 82 papers remaining for data extraction. 57% used retrospective single center hospital data, 31.6% used TCIA and BRATS, and 11.4% analyzed multicenter hospital data. An average of 146 patients (range 34-462 patients) were included. Algorithms predicting IDH status comprised 51.8% of studies, MGMT 18.1%, and 1p19q 6.0%. Machine learning methods were used in 71.4%, deep learning in 27.4%, and 1.2% directly compared both methods. The most common algorithm for machine learning were support vector machine (43.3%), and for deep learning convolutional neural network (68.4%). Mean prediction accuracy was 76.6%. CONCLUSION: Machine learning is the predominant method for image-based prediction of glioma molecular subtypes. Major limitations include limited datasets (60.2% with under 150 patients) and thus limited generalizability of findings. We recommend using larger annotated datasets for AI network training and testing in order to create more robust AI algorithms, which will provide better prediction accuracy to real world clinical datasets and provide tools that can be translated to clinical practice.