Imaging Biomarkers of Glioblastoma Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Machine Learning Studies.
Authors
Booth, Thomas C
Grzeda, Mariusz
Chelliah, Alysha
Roman, Andrei
Al Busaidi, Ayisha
Dragos, Carmen
Shuaib, Haris
Luis, Aysha
Mirchandani, Ayesha
Alparslan, Burcu
Mansoor, Nina
Lavrador, Jose
Vergani, Francesco
Ashkan, Keyoumars
Modat, Marc
Ourselin, Sebastien
Publication Date
2022Journal Title
Front Oncol
ISSN
2234-943X
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Volume
12
Language
en
Type
Article
This Version
VoR
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Booth, T. C., Grzeda, M., Chelliah, A., Roman, A., Al Busaidi, A., Dragos, C., Shuaib, H., et al. (2022). Imaging Biomarkers of Glioblastoma Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Machine Learning Studies.. Front Oncol, 12 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.799662
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Monitoring biomarkers using machine learning (ML) may determine glioblastoma treatment response. We systematically reviewed quality and performance accuracy of recently published studies. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Diagnostic Test Accuracy, we extracted articles from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Register between 09/2018-01/2021. Included study participants were adults with glioblastoma having undergone standard treatment (maximal resection, radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide), and follow-up imaging to determine treatment response status (specifically, distinguishing progression/recurrence from progression/recurrence mimics, the target condition). Using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Two/Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging, we assessed bias risk and applicability concerns. We determined test set performance accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1-score, balanced accuracy). We used a bivariate random-effect model to determine pooled sensitivity, specificity, area-under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC-AUC). Pooled measures of balanced accuracy, positive/negative likelihood ratios (PLR/NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. PROSPERO registered (CRD42021261965). RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included (1335/384 patients for training/testing respectively). Small patient numbers, high bias risk, applicability concerns (particularly confounding in reference standard and patient selection) and low level of evidence, allow limited conclusions from studies. Ten studies (10/18, 56%) included in meta-analysis gave 0.769 (0.649-0.858) sensitivity [pooled (95% CI)]; 0.648 (0.749-0.532) specificity; 0.706 (0.623-0.779) balanced accuracy; 2.220 (1.560-3.140) PLR; 0.366 (0.213-0.572) NLR; 6.670 (2.800-13.500) DOR; 0.765 ROC-AUC. CONCLUSION: ML models using MRI features to distinguish between progression and mimics appear to demonstrate good diagnostic performance. However, study quality and design require improvement.
Keywords
Oncology, glioblastoma, machine learning, monitoring biomarkers, meta-analysis, artificial intelligence, treatment response, deep learning, glioma
Identifiers
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.799662
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/334008
Rights
Licence:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Statistics
Total file downloads (since January 2020). For more information on metrics see the
IRUS guide.
Recommended or similar items
The current recommendation prototype on the Apollo Repository will be turned off on 03 February 2023. Although the pilot has been fruitful for both parties, the service provider IKVA is focusing on horizon scanning products and so the recommender service can no longer be supported. We recognise the importance of recommender services in supporting research discovery and are evaluating offerings from other service providers. If you would like to offer feedback on this decision please contact us on: support@repository.cam.ac.uk