Development and Evaluation of Automated Artificial Intelligence–Based Brain Tumor Response Assessment in Patients with Glioblastoma

References

1. 1.↵
   1. De Vleeschouwer S

   1. Tamimi AF,
   2. Juweid M

   . Epidemiology and outcome of glioblastoma. In: De Vleeschouwer S, ed. Glioblastoma. Exon Publications; 2017 doi:10.15586/codon.glioblastoma.2017.ch8

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Louis DN,
   2. Perry A,
   3. Wesseling P, et al

   . The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Neuro Oncol 2021;23:1231–51 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noab106 pmid:34185076

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Delgado-López PD,
   2. Corrales-García EM

   . Survival in glioblastoma: a review on the impact of treatment modalities. Clin Transl Oncol 2016;18:1062–71 doi:10.1007/s12094-016-1497-x pmid:26960561

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Marenco-Hillembrand L,
   2. Wijesekera O,
   3. Suarez-Meade P, et al

   . Trends in glioblastoma: outcomes over time and type of intervention: a systematic evidence based analysis. J Neurooncol 2020;147:297–307 doi:10.1007/s11060-020-03451-6 pmid:32157552

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Reardon DA,
   2. Ballman KV,
   3. Buckner JC, et al

   . Impact of imaging measurements on response assessment in glioblastoma clinical trials. Neuro Oncol 2014;16 Suppl 7:vii24–35 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nou286 pmid:25313236

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Wen PY,
   2. Macdonald DR,
   3. Reardon DA, et al

   . Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1963–72 doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541 pmid:20231676

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Chukwueke UN,
   2. Wen PY

   . Use of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria in clinical trials and clinical practice. CNS Oncol 2019;8:CNS28 doi:10.2217/cns-2018-0007 pmid:30806082

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Ramakrishnan D,
   2. von Reppert M,
   3. Krycia M, et al

   . Evolution and implementation of radiographic response criteria in neuro-oncology. Neurooncol Adv 2023;5:vdad118 doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdad118 pmid:37860269

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Macdonald DR,
   2. Cascino TL,
   3. Schold SC, et al

   . Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1277–80 doi:10.1200/JCO.1990.8.7.1277 pmid:2358840

   Abstract
10. 10.↵
    1. Eisenhauer EA,
    2. Therasse P,
    3. Bogaerts J, et al

    . New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228–47 doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 pmid:19097774

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Ellingson BM,
    2. Wen PY,
    3. Cloughesy TF

    . Modified criteria for radiographic response assessment in glioblastoma clinical trials. Neurotherapeutics 2017;14:307–20 doi:10.1007/s13311-016-0507-6 pmid:28108885

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Weinberg BD,
    2. Gore A,
    3. Shu H-KG, et al

    . Management-based structured reporting of posttreatment glioma response with the Brain Tumor Reporting and Data System. J Am Coll Radiology 2018;15:767–71 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2018.01.022 pmid:29503151

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Gore A,
    2. Hoch MJ,
    3. Shu H-KG, et al

    . Institutional implementation of a structured reporting system: our experience with the brain tumor reporting and data system. Acad Radiology 2019;26:974–80 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2018.12.023 pmid:30661977

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Zhang JY,
    2. Weinberg BD,
    3. Hu R, et al

    . Quantitative improvement in brain tumor MRI through structured reporting (BT-RADS). Acad Radiology 2020;27:780–84 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2019.07.028 pmid:31471207

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Chappell R,
    2. Miranpuri SS,
    3. Mehta MP

    . Dimension in defining tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:1234 doi:10.1200/JCO.1998.16.3.1234 pmid:9508213

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Menze BH,
    2. Jakab A,
    3. Bauer S, et al

    . The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2015;34:1993–2024 doi:10.1109/TMI.2014.2377694 pmid:25494501

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Pati S,
    2. Baid U,
    3. Edwards B, et al

    . Federated learning enables big data for rare cancer boundary detection. Nat Commun 2022;13:7346 doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33407-5 pmid:36470898

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Rudie JD,
    2. Calabrese E,
    3. Saluja R, et al

    . Longitudinal assessment of posttreatment diffuse glioma tissue volumes with three-dimensional convolutional neural networks. Radiology Artif Intell 2022;4:e210243 doi:10.1148/ryai.210243 pmid:36204543

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Chang K,
    2. Beers AL,
    3. Bai HX, et al

    . Automatic assessment of glioma burden: a deep learning algorithm for fully automated volumetric and bidimensional measurement. Neuro Oncol 2019;21:1412–22 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noz106 pmid:31190077

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Suter Y,
    2. Notter M,
    3. Meier R, et al

    . Evaluating automated longitudinal tumor measurements for glioblastoma response assessment. Front Radiology 2023;3:1211859 doi:10.3389/fradi.2023.1211859 pmid:37745204

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Kickingereder P,
    2. Isensee F,
    3. Tursunova I, et al

    . Automated quantitative tumour response assessment of MRI in neuro-oncology with artificial neural networks: a multicentre, retrospective study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:728–40 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30098-1 pmid:30952559

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Ellingson BM,
    2. Bendszus M,
    3. Boxerman J

    ; Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition Imaging Standardization Steering Committee, et al. Consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol in clinical trials. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:1188–98 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov095 pmid:26250565

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Mazziotta JC,
    2. Toga AW,
    3. Evans A, et al

    . A probabilistic atlas of the human brain: theory and rationale for its development. The International Consortium for Brain Mapping (ICBM). Neuroimage 1995;2:89–101 doi:10.1006/nimg.1995.1012 pmid:9343592

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Pati S,
    2. Baid U,
    3. Edwards B, et al

    . The federated tumor segmentation (FeTS) tool: an open-source solution to further solid tumor research. Phys Med Biol 2022;67:204002 doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ac9449

    CrossRef
25. 25.↵
    1. Gahrmann R,
    2. van den Bent M,
    3. van der Holt B, et al

    . Comparison of 2D (RANO) and volumetric methods for assessment of recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab—a report from the BELOB trial. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:853–61 doi:10.1093/neuonc/now311 pmid:28204639

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Wang M-Y,
    2. Cheng J-L,
    3. Han Y-H, et al

    . Measurement of tumor size in adult glioblastoma: classical cross-sectional criteria on 2D MRI or volumetric criteria on high resolution 3D MRI? Eur J Radiology 2012;81:2370–74 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.05.017 pmid:21652157

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Wen PY,
    2. van den Bent M,
    3. Youssef G, et al

    . RANO 2.0: update to the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria for high- and low-grade gliomas in adults. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:5187–99 doi:10.1200/JCO.23.01059 pmid:37774317

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Vollmuth P,
    2. Foltyn M,
    3. Huang RY, et al

    . Artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support improves reproducibility of tumor response assessment in neuro-oncology: an international multi-reader study. Neuro Oncol 2023;25:533–43 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noac189 pmid:35917833

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Vos MJ,
    2. Uitdehaag BMJ,
    3. Barkhof F, et al

    . Interobserver variability in the radiological assessment of response to chemotherapy in glioma. Neurology 2003;60:826–30 doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000049467.54667.92 pmid:12629241

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Galanis E,
    2. Buckner JC,
    3. Maurer MJ, et al

    . Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods. Neuro Oncol 2006;8:156–65 doi:10.1215/15228517-2005-005 pmid:16533757

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Dempsey MF,
    2. Condon BR,
    3. Hadley DM

    . Measurement of tumor “size” in recurrent malignant glioma: 1D, 2D, or 3D? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:770–76 pmid:15814919

    PubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    1. Yang D

    . Standardized MRI assessment of high-grade glioma response: a review of the essential elements and pitfalls of the RANO criteria. Neurooncol Pract 2016;3:59–67 doi:10.1093/nop/npv023 pmid:31579522

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Ellingson BM

    . On the promise of artificial intelligence for standardizing radiographic response assessment in gliomas. Neuro Oncol 2019;21:1346–47 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noz162 pmid:31504809

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Sotoudeh H,
    2. Shafaat O,
    3. Bernstock JD, et al

    . Artificial intelligence in the management of glioma: era of personalized medicine. Front Oncol 2019;9:768 doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.00768 pmid:31475111

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Rudie JD,
    2. Rauschecker AM,
    3. Bryan RN, et al

    . Emerging applications of artificial intelligence in neuro-oncology. Radiology 2019;290:607–18 doi:10.1148/radiol.2018181928 pmid:30667332

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Isensee F,
    2. Jaeger PF,
    3. Kohl SA, et al

    . nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nat Methods 2021;18:203–11 pmid:33288961

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Thust SC,
    2. van den Bent MJ,
    3. Smits M

    . Pseudoprogression of brain tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;48:571–89

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Linhares P,
    2. Carvalho B,
    3. Figueiredo R, et al

    . Early pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy in glioblastoma patients: the value of RANO evaluation. J Oncol 2013;2013:690585 doi:10.1155/2013/690585 pmid:24000284

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Kim S,
    2. Hoch MJ,
    3. Peng L, et al

    . A brain tumor reporting and data system to optimize imaging surveillance and prognostication in high-grade gliomas. J Neuroimaging 2022;32:1185–92 doi:10.1111/jon.13044 pmid:36045502

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Bianconi A,
    2. Rossi LF,
    3. Bonada M, et al

    . Deep learning-based algorithm for postoperative glioblastoma MRI segmentation: a promising new tool for tumor burden assessment. Brain Inform 2023;10:26 doi:10.1186/s40708-023-00207-6 pmid:37801128

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Crimi A,
    2. Bakas S

    1. Bangalore Yogananda CG,
    2. Wagner B,
    3. Nalawade SS, et al

    . Fully automated brain tumor segmentation and survival prediction of gliomas using deep learning and MRI. In: Crimi A, Bakas S, eds. Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries. BrainLes 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer; 2020;11993:99–112

    CrossRef