PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Tampu, Iulian Emil
AU  - Haj-Hosseini, Neda
AU  - Blystad, Ida
AU  - Eklund, Anders
TI  - Deep learning for quantitative MRI brain tumor analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2023.03.21.23287514
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.03.21.23287514
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/24/2023.03.21.23287514.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/24/2023.03.21.23287514.full
AB  - The infiltrative nature of malignant gliomas results in active tumor spreading into the peritumoral edema, which is not visible in conventional magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) even after contrast injection. MR relaxometry (qMRI) measures relaxation rates dependent on tissue properties, and can offer additional contrast mechanisms to highlight the non-enhancing infiltrative tumor. The aim of this study is to investigate if qMRI data provides additional information compared to cMRI sequences (T1w, T1wGd, T2w, FLAIR), when considering deep learning-based brain tumor (1) detection and (2) segmentation. A total of 23 patients with histologically confirmed malignant glioma were retrospectively included in the study. Quantitative MR imaging was used to obtain R1 (1/T1), R2 (1/T2) and proton density maps pre- and post-gadolinium contrast injection. Conventional MR imaging was also performed. A 2D CNN detection model and a 2D U-Net were trained on transversal slices (n=528) using either cMRI or a combination of qMRI pre- and post-contrast data for tumor detection and segmentation, respectively. Moreover, trends in quantitative R1 and R2 rates of regions identified as relevant for tumor detection by model explainability methods were qualitatively analyzed. Tumor detection and segmentation performance for models trained with a combination of qMRI pre- and post-contrast was the highest (detection MCC=0.72, segmentation Dice=0.90), however, improvements were not statistically significant compared to cMRI (detection MCC=0.67, segmentation Dice=0.90). The analysis of the relaxation rates of the relevant regions identified using model explainability methods showed no differences between models trained on cMRI or qMRI. Relevant regions which fell outside the annotation showed changes in relaxation rates after contrast injection similar to those within the annotation, when looking at majority of the individual cases. A similar trend could not be seen when looking at relaxation trends over all the dataset. In conclusion, models trained on qMRI data obtain similar performance to those trained on cMRI data, with the advantage of quantitatively measuring brain tissue properties within the scan time (11.8 minutes for qMRI with and without contrast, and 12.2 minutes for cMRI). Moreover, when considering individual patients, regions identified by model explainability methods as relevant for tumor detection outside the manual annotation of the tumor showed changes in quantitative relaxation rates after contrast injection similar to regions within the annotation, suggestive of infiltrative tumor in the peritumoral edema.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was supported by CENIIT at Linkoping University, ITEA3 / VINNOVA funded project "Intelligence based iMprovement of Personalized treatment And Clinical workflow supporT" (IMPACT), LiU Cancer at Linkoping University, the Analytic Imaging Diagnostics Arena (AIDA), the ITEA4 / VINNOVA funded project "Automation, Surgery Support and Intuitive 3D visualization to optimize workflow in IGT SysTems" (ASSIST) (2021-01954), the Ake Wiberg foundation (M22-0088), Medical Research Council of Southeast Sweden (FORSS-234551), and Swedish Research Council (2018-05250).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Regional ethical board of Linkoping, Sweden (decision number 2011 / 406-31)I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe data used for this study is not shared. The used code is available at https://github.com/IulianEmilTampu/qMRI_and_DL