Radiomics and machine learning for predicting the consistency of benign tumors of the central nervous system: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Predicting the consistency of benign central nervous system (CNS) tumors prior to surgery helps to improve surgical outcomes. This review summarizes and analyzes the literature on using radiomics and/or machine learning (ML) for consistency prediction. METHOD: The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) database was screened for studies published in English from January 1st 2000. Data was extracted according to the PRISMA guidelines and quality of the studies was assessed in compliance with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). RESULTS: Eight publications were included focusing on pituitary macroadenomas (n = 5), pituitary adenomas (n = 1), and meningiomas (n = 2) using a retrospective (n = 6), prospective (n = 1), and unknown (n = 1) study design with a total of 763 patients for the consistency prediction. The studies reported an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71-0.99 for their respective best performing model regarding the consistency prediction. Of all studies, four articles validated their models internally whereas none validated their models externally. Two articles stated making data available on request with the remaining publications lacking information with regard to data availability. CONCLUSIONS: The research on consistency prediction of CNS tumors is still at an early stage regarding the use of radiomics and different ML techniques. Best-practice procedures regarding radiomics and ML need to be followed more rigorously to facilitate the comparison between publications and, accordingly, the possible implementation into clinical practice in the future.

Machine Learning for the Detection and Segmentation of Benign Tumors of the Central Nervous System: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: To summarize the available literature on using machine learning (ML) for the detection and segmentation of benign tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) and to assess the adherence of published ML/diagnostic accuracy studies to best practice. Methods: The MEDLINE database was searched for the use of ML in patients with any benign tumor of the CNS, and the records were screened according to PRISMA guidelines. Results: Eleven retrospective studies focusing on meningioma (n = 4), vestibular schwannoma (n = 4), pituitary adenoma (n = 2) and spinal schwannoma (n = 1) were included. The majority of studies attempted segmentation. Links to repositories containing code were provided in two manuscripts, and no manuscripts shared imaging data. Only one study used an external test set, which raises the question as to whether some of the good performances that have been reported were caused by overfitting and may not generalize to data from other institutions. Conclusions: Using ML for detecting and segmenting benign brain tumors is still in its infancy. Stronger adherence to ML best practices could facilitate easier comparisons between studies and contribute to the development of models that are more likely to one day be used in clinical practice.

Convolutional Neural Networks to Detect Vestibular Schwannomas on Single MRI Slices: A Feasibility Study.

In this study. we aimed to detect vestibular schwannomas (VSs) in individual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) slices by using a 2D-CNN. A pretrained CNN (ResNet-34) was retrained and internally validated using contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1c) MRI slices from one institution. In a second step, the model was externally validated using T1c- and T1-weighted (T1) slices from a different institution. As a substitute, bisected slices were used with and without tumors originating from whole transversal slices that contained part of the unilateral VS. The model predictions were assessed based on the categorical accuracy and confusion matrices. A total of 539, 94, and 74 patients were included for training, internal validation, and external T1c validation, respectively. This resulted in an accuracy of 0.949 (95% CI 0.935-0.963) for the internal validation and 0.912 (95% CI 0.866-0.958) for the external T1c validation. We suggest that 2D-CNNs might be a promising alternative to 2.5-/3D-CNNs for certain tasks thanks to the decreased demand for computational power and the fact that there is no need for segmentations. However, further research is needed on the difference between 2D-CNNs and more complex architectures.