Back

Morphological Metrics of Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Glioblastoma as Biomarkers of Prognosis

Curtin, L.; Whitmire, P.; White, H.; Mrugala, M. M.; Hu, L. S.; Swanson, K. R.

2021-02-01 bioinformatics
10.1101/2021.01.29.428875 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Morphological characteristics have been linked to outcomes across a variety of cancers. Lacunarity is a quantitative morphological measure of how shapes fill space while fractal dimension is a morphological measure of the complexity of pixel arrangement. Glioblastoma is the most aggressive primary brain tumor with a short expected survival given the current standard-of-care treatment. Due to the sensitive location of the tumor, there is a heavy reliance on imaging to assess the state of the disease in the clinic. In this project, we computed lacunarity and fractal dimension values for glioblastoma-induced abnormalities on gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (T1Gd MRI) as well as T2-weighted (T2) and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRIs. In our patient cohort (n=402), we aim to connect these morphological metrics calculated on pretreatment MRI with the survival of patients with GBM. We calculated lacunarity and fractal dimension across all MRI slices on necrotic regions (n=390) and abnormalities on T1Gd MRI (n=402), as well as on enhancing abnormalities present on T2/FLAIR MRI (n=257). We also explored the relationship between these metrics and age at diagnosis, as well as abnormality volume. We found statistically significant relationships to outcome across all three imaging subtypes, with the shape of T2/FLAIR abnormalities showing the strongest relationship with overall survival. The link between morphological and survival metrics could be driven by underlying biological phenomena, tumor location or microenvironmental factors that should be further explored.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.