Machine Learning in Differentiating Gliomas from Primary CNS Lymphomas: A Systematic Review, Reporting Quality, and Risk of Bias Assessment

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Ostrom QT,
   2. Gittleman H,
   3. Liao P, et al

   . CBTRUS Statistical Report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2010-2014. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:v1–88 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox158 pmid:29117289

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Villano JL,
   2. Koshy M,
   3. Shaikh H, et al

   . Age, gender, and racial differences in incidence and survival in primary CNS lymphoma. Br J Cancer 2011;105:1414–18 doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.357 pmid:21915121

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Tan AC,
   2. Ashley DM,
   3. Lopez GY, et al

   . Management of glioblastoma: state of the art and future directions. CA Cancer J Clin 2020;70:299–312 doi:10.3322/caac.21613 pmid:32478924

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Hoang-Xuan K,
   2. Bessell E,
   3. Bromberg J, et al

   ; European Association for Neuro-Oncology Task Force on Primary CNS Lymphoma, Diagnosis and treatment of primary CNS lymphoma in immunocompetent patients: guidelines from the European Association for Neuro-Oncology. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:e322–32 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00076-5 pmid:26149884

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Batchelor TT

   . Primary central nervous system lymphoma: a curable disease. Hematol Oncol 2019;37(Suppl 1):15–18 doi:10.1002/hon.2598 pmid:31187523

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Elder JB,
   2. Chen TC

   . Surgical interventions for primary central nervous system lymphoma. Neurosurg Focus 2006;21:E13 doi:10.3171/foc.2006.21.5.14 pmid:17134115

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Yang H,
   2. Xun Y,
   3. Yang A, et al

   . Advances and challenges in the treatment of primary central nervous system lymphoma. J Cell Physiol 2020;235:9143–65 doi:10.1002/jcp.29790 pmid:32420657

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Malikova H,
   2. Liscak R,
   3. Latnerova I, et al

   . Complications of MRI-guided stereotactic biopsy of brain lymphoma. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 2014;35:613–18 pmid:25617885

   PubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Malone H,
   2. Yang J,
   3. Hershman DL, et al

   . Complications following stereotactic needle biopsy of intracranial tumors. World Neurosurg 2015;84:1084–89 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.05.025 pmid:26008141

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Weller M,
    2. Martus P,
    3. Roth P, et al

    ; German PCNSL Study Group. Surgery for primary CNS lymphoma? Challenging a paradigm. Neuro Oncol 2012;14:1481–84 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nos159 pmid:22984018

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Haldorsen IS,
    2. Espeland A,
    3. Larsson EM

    . Central nervous system lymphoma: characteristic findings on traditional and advanced imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:984–92 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2171 pmid:20616176

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Yuguang L,
    2. Meng L,
    3. Shugan Z, et al

    . Intracranial tumoural haemorrhage: a report of 58 cases. J Clin Neurosci 2002;9:637–39 doi:10.1054/jocn.2002.1131 pmid:12604273

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Villanueva-Meyer JE,
    2. Mabray MC,
    3. Cha S

    . Current clinical brain tumor imaging. Neurosurgery 2017;81:397–415 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyx103 pmid:28486641

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Wang S,
    2. Summers RM

    . Machine learning and radiology. Med Image Anal 2012;16:933–51 doi:10.1016/j.media.2012.02.005 pmid:22465077

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Nguyen AV,
    2. Blears EE,
    3. Ross E, et al

    . Machine learning applications for the differentiation of primary central nervous system lymphoma from glioblastoma on imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus 2018;45:E5 doi:10.3171/2018.8.FOCUS18325 pmid:30453459

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Whiting P,
    2. Westwood M,
    3. Burke M, et al

    . Systematic reviews of test accuracy should search a range of databases to identify primary studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:357–64 pmid:18313560

    PubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Page MJ,
    2. McKenzie JE,
    3. Bossuyt PM, et al

    . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71 doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 pmid:33782057

    FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Collins GS,
    2. Reitsma JB,
    3. Altman DG, et al

    . Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ 2015;350:g7594 doi:10.1136/bmj.g7594 pmid:25569120

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Moons KG,
    2. Wolff RF,
    3. Riley RD, et al

    . PROBAST: a tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2019;170:W1–33 doi:10.7326/M18-1377 pmid:30596876

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Altman DG

    . Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Chapman and Hall; 1991
21. 21.↵
    1. Zhou XH,
    2. Obuchowski NA,
    3. McClish DK

    . Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. Wiley; 2011
22. 22.↵
    1. Higgins JP,
    2. Thompson SG,
    3. Deeks JJ, et al

    . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60 doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 pmid:12958120

    FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    1. Alcaide-Leon P,
    2. Dufort P,
    3. Geraldo AF, et al

    . Differentiation of enhancing glioma and primary central nervous system lymphoma by texture-based machine learning. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:1145–50 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5173 pmid:28450433

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Bao S,
    2. Watanabe Y,
    3. Takahashi H, et al

    . Differentiating between glioblastoma and primary CNS lymphoma using combined whole-tumor histogram analysis of the normalized cerebral blood volume and the apparent diffusion coefficient. Magn Reson Med Sci 2019;18:53–61 doi:10.2463/mrms.mp.2017-0135 pmid:29848919

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.
    1. Chen C,
    2. Zheng A,
    3. Ou X, et al

    . Comparison of radiomics-based machine-learning classifiers in diagnosis of glioblastoma from primary central nervous system lymphoma. Front Oncol 2020;10:1151doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.01151 pmid:33042784

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Chen Y,
    2. Li Z,
    3. Wu G, et al

    . Primary central nervous system lymphoma and glioblastoma differentiation based on conventional magnetic resonance imaging by high-throughput SIFT features. Int J Neurosci 2018;128:608–18 doi:10.1080/00207454.2017.1408613 pmid:29183170

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Eisenhut F,
    2. Schmidt MA,
    3. Putz F, et al

    . Classification of primary cerebral lymphoma and glioblastoma featuring dynamic susceptibility contrast and apparent diffusion coefficient. Brain Sci 2020;10:886 doi:10.3390/brainsci10110886 pmid:33233698

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Kang D,
    2. Park JE,
    3. Kim YH, et al

    . Diffusion radiomics as a diagnostic model for atypical manifestation of primary central nervous system lymphoma: development and multicenter external validation. Neuro Oncol 2018;20:1251–61 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noy021 pmid:29438500

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Kickingereder P,
    2. Wiestler B,
    3. Sahm F, et al

    . Primary central nervous system lymphoma and atypical glioblastoma: multiparametric differentiation by using diffusion-, perfusion-, and susceptibility-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 2014;272:843–50 doi:10.1148/radiol.14132740 pmid:24814181

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    1. Kim Y,
    2. Cho HH,
    3. Kim ST, et al

    . Radiomics features to distinguish glioblastoma from primary central nervous system lymphoma on multi-parametric MRI. Neuroradiology 2018;60:1297–1305 doi:10.1007/s00234-018-2091-4 pmid:30232517

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Kunimatsu A,
    2. Kunimatsu N,
    3. Yasaka K, et al

    . Machine learning-based texture analysis of contrast-enhanced MR imaging to differentiate between glioblastoma and primary central nervous system lymphoma. Magn Reson Med Sci 2019;18:44–52 doi:10.2463/mrms.mp.2017-0178 pmid:29769456

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Nakagawa M,
    2. Nakaura T,
    3. Namimoto T, et al

    . Machine learning based on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging to differentiate glioblastoma multiforme from primary cerebral nervous system lymphoma. Eur J Radiol 2018;108:147–54 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.09.017 pmid:30396648

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    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;10:21485 doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78485-x pmid:33293590

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Shrot S,
    2. Salhov M,
    3. Dvorski N, et al

    . Application of MR morphologic, diffusion tensor, and perfusion imaging in the classification of brain tumors using machine learning scheme. Neuroradiology 2019;61:757–65 doi:10.1007/s00234-019-02195-z pmid:30949746

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Suh HB,
    2. Choi YS,
    3. Bae S, et al

    . Primary central nervous system lymphoma and atypical glioblastoma: differentiation using radiomics approach. Eur Radiol 2018;28:3832–39 doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5368-4 pmid:29626238

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Swinburne NC,
    2. Schefflein J,
    3. Sakai Y, et al

    . Machine learning for semi-automated classification of glioblastoma, brain metastasis and central nervous system lymphoma using magnetic resonance advanced imaging. Ann Transl Med 2019;7:232 doi:10.21037/atm.2018.08.05 pmid:31317002

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Xia W,
    2. Hu B,
    3. Li H, et al

    . Multiparametric-MRI-based radiomics model for differentiating primary central nervous system lymphoma from glioblastoma: development and cross-vendor validation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2021;53:242–50 doi:10.1002/jmri.27344 pmid:32864825

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Xiao DD,
    2. Yan PF,
    3. Wang YX, et al

    . Glioblastoma and primary central nervous system lymphoma: preoperative differentiation by using MRI-based 3D texture analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2018;173:84–90 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.08.004 pmid:30092408

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Yamasaki T,
    2. Chen T,
    3. Hirai T, et al

    . Classification of cerebral lymphomas and glioblastomas featuring luminance distribution analysis. Comput Math Methods Med 2013;2013:619658 doi:10.1155/2013/619658 pmid:23840280

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Yamashita K,
    2. Hiwatashi A,
    3. Togao O, et al

    . Diagnostic utility of intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging in differentiating primary central nervous system lymphoma from glioblastoma multiforme. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;44:1256–61 doi:10.1002/jmri.25261 pmid:27093558

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Yamashita K,
    2. Yoshiura T,
    3. Arimura H, et al

    . Performance evaluation of radiologists with artificial neural network for differential diagnosis of intra-axial cerebral tumors on MR images. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1153–58 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1037 pmid:18388216

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
42. 42.↵
    1. Yamashita K,
    2. Yoshiura T,
    3. Hiwatashi A, et al

    . Differentiating primary CNS lymphoma from glioblastoma multiforme: assessment using arterial spin labeling, diffusion-weighted imaging, and (1)(8)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Neuroradiology 2013;55:135–43 doi:10.1007/s00234-012-1089-6 pmid:22961074

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Yun J,
    2. Park JE,
    3. Lee H, et al

    . Radiomic features and multilayer perceptron network classifier: a robust MRI classification strategy for distinguishing glioblastoma from primary central nervous system lymphoma. Sci Rep 2019;9:5746 doi:10.1038/s41598-019-42276-w pmid:30952930

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    1. Zhou W,
    2. Wen J,
    3. Hua F, et al

    . (18)F-FDG PET/CT in immunocompetent patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma: differentiation from glioblastoma and correlation with DWI. Eur J Radiol 2018;104:26–32 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.04.020

    CrossRef
45. 45.↵
    1. Wang S,
    2. Kim S,
    3. Chawla S, et al

    . Differentiation between glioblastomas, solitary brain metastases, and primary cerebral lymphomas using diffusion tensor and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:507–14 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2333 pmid:21330399

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
46. 46.↵
    1. Lowe DG

    . Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vis 2004;60:91–110 doi:10.1023/B:VISI.0000029664.99615.94

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
47. 47.↵
    1. van Griethuysen JJM,
    2. Fedorov A,
    3. Parmar C, et al

    . Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res 2017;77:e104–07 doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0339 pmid:29092951

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
48. 48.↵
    1. Bahar R,
    2. Merkaj S,
    3. Brim WR, et al

    . NIMG-23: machine learning methods in glioma grade prediction: a systematic review. Neuro-Oncology 2021;23:vi133 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noab196.523

    CrossRef
49. 49.↵
    1. Brim WR,
    2. Jekel L,
    3. Petersen GC, et al

    . OTHR-12. The development of machine learning algorithms for the differentiation of glioma and brain metastases: a systematic review. Neuro-Oncology Advances 2021;3:iii17 doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdab071.067

    CrossRef
50. 50.↵
    1. Lee JG,
    2. Jun S,
    3. Cho YW, et al

    . Deep learning in medical imaging: general overview. Korean J Radiology 2017;18:570–84 doi:10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.570 pmid:28670152

    CrossRefPubMed
51. 51.↵
    1. Takahashi R,
    2. Kajikawa Y

    . Computer-aided diagnosis: a survey with bibliometric analysis. Int J Med Inform 2017;101:58–67 doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.02.004 pmid:28347448

    CrossRefPubMed
52. 52.↵
    1. Booth TC,
    2. Williams M,
    3. Luis A, et al

    . Machine learning and glioma imaging biomarkers. Clin Radiol 2020;75:20–32 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2019.07.001 pmid:31371027

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    1. Mongan J,
    2. Moy L,
    3. Kahn CE Jr..

    Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): a guide for authors and reviewers. Radiol Artif Intell 2020;2:e200029 doi:10.1148/ryai.2020200029 pmid:33937821

    CrossRefPubMed
54. 54.↵
    1. Park JE,
    2. Kim D,
    3. Kim HS, et al

    . Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement. Eur Radiol 2020;30:523–36 doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06360-z pmid:31350588

    CrossRefPubMed
55. 55.↵
    1. Jekel L,
    2. Brim WR,
    3. Petersen GC, et al

    . OTHR-15. Assessment of TRIPOD adherence in articles developing machine learning models for differentiation of glioma from brain metastasis. Neuro-oncology Advances 2021;3:17–18 doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdab071.070

    CrossRef
56. 56.↵
    1. Merkaj S,
    2. Bahar R,
    3. Brim W, et al

    . NIMG-35: machine learning glioma grade prediction literature: a TRIPOD analysis of reporting quality. Neuro-Oncology 2021;23:vi136 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noab196.535

    CrossRef
57. 57.↵
    1. Scherer RW,
    2. Saldanha IJ

    . How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches. Syst Rev 2019;8:264 doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1188-0 pmid:31699124

    CrossRefPubMed
58. 58.↵
    1. Scherer RW,
    2. Sieving PC,
    3. Ervin AM, et al

    . Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials? PLoS One 2012;7:e44183 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044183 pmid:22984474

    CrossRefPubMed
59. 59.↵
    1. Bhandari AP,
    2. Liong R,
    3. Koppen J, et al

    . Noninvasive determination of IDH and 1p19q status of lower-grade gliomas using MRI radiomics: a systematic review. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:94–101 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6875 pmid:33243896

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
60. 60.↵
    1. Collins GS,
    2. Moons KG

    . Reporting of artificial intelligence prediction models. Lancet 2019;393:1577–79 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30037-6 pmid:31007185

    CrossRefPubMed