Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Prediction of Pituitary Adenoma Volumetric Response to Gamma Knife Radiosurgery Using Machine Learning-Supported MRI Radiomics

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

06 February 2025

Posted:

06 February 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Purpose: Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) is widely performed as an adjuvant management of patients with residual or recurrent pituitary adenoma (PA). However, the variability in tumor volume response to GKRS emphasizes the need for reliable predictors of treatment outcomes. The application of radiomics, an analytical approach for quantitative imaging, remains unexplored in predicting treatment responses for PAs. This study aims to pioneer the use of radiomic MRI analysis to predict the volumetric response of PA to GKRS. Approach: This retrospective observational cohort study involved 81 patients who underwent GKRS for PA. Pre-treatment 3-Tesla MRI scans were used to extract radiomic features capturing the intensity, shape, and texture of the tumors. Radiomic signatures were generated using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) for feature selection, in conjunction with several classifiers: random forest, naïve Bayes, kNN, logistic regression, neural network and SVM. Results: The models demonstrated predictive performance in the test folds with AUC values ranging from 0.759 to 0.928 and R2 values between 0.272 and 0.665. Single-sequence T1w, dual-sequence T1w+CE-T1w and multi-modality including clinicopathological (CP) parameters (CP+T1w+CE-T1w) achieved rather similar prognostic performance in test folds, with respective AUCs of 0.928, 0.899, and 0.909. All these radiomics models significantly outperformed a benchmark model involving only CP features (AUC=0.846). Conclusion: This study represents a radiomic analysis focused on predicting the volume response of PAs to GKRS to facilitate treatment individualization. The developed MRI-based radiomics models exhibited superior classification performance compared to the benchmark model composed solely of standard clinicopathological parameters.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction

Pituitary adenomas (PAs) are predominantly benign brain tumors, constituting 10%-20% of all intracranial neoplasms, and account for most sellar and parasellar tumors. Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) has emerged as an effective and minimally invasive treatment modality with high therapeutic efficacy for various intracranial pathologies, including non-functioning and functioning PAs. Radiosurgery (SRS), involving hypofractionated SRS delivered in up to five fractions, achieves tumor control rates ranging from 80% to over 90% in published reports [1,2,3]. Although GKRS achieves favorable outcomes, the individual treatment response varies substantially among patients, necessitating more reliable predictors of individual treatment outcomes [4,5,6].
A common approach in PA treatment is the transsphenoidal removal of the central part of the PA, frequently leaving the remnants within the cavernous sinus for GKRS treatment. Volume response, commonly assessed through post-treatment imaging, is an essential indicator of GKRS efficacy and can inform subsequent management decisions. Identifying reliable predictors of volume response would enable early intervention for poor- and non-responders, potentially improving overall patient outcomes. If reliable pre-treatment outcome prediction existed, surgical treatment could be avoided in selected PAs predicted to respond significantly to GKRS. Conversely, in cases with a less favorable prognosis to GKRS, where higher radiation doses may be required, upfront surgical removal of the central parts of the PA can be preferable to avoid radiation injury to adjacent critical structures, particularly the optic nerves, chiasm, and tracts.
Radiomics focuses on extracting and analyzing intensity, morphological and texture features from medical images. These features capture complex tumor characteristics that are often invisible to the human eye, enabling the potential identification of imaging biomarkers for treatment response prediction. Radiomics has shown promise in various oncological contexts, allowing for non-invasive prediction of treatment response or prognosis of disease outcome [7,8].
We hypothesized that radiomics prediction signatures could outperform the benchmark signature relying only on routine clinicopathological (CP) features for predicting PA volumetric response.
The objective of this study was to develop several single-modality and multi-modality radiomic prediction signatures, both with and without CP parameters, to predict the volumetric response of PAs to GKRS, using pre-treatment MRI. Additionally, the study aimed to compare the predictive performance of these signatures in the test folds. Improving the prediction of treatment outcomes is highly clinically relevant because it enables personalized treatment planning, optimizes therapeutic strategies and thereby enhances patient care.

2. Methods

This study adheres to the guidelines set out in the STROBE statement for cohort studies.

2.1. Ethics Approval Statement

The study received approval (BLINDED FOR REVIEW) from our Institutional Review Board and adheres to The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki), as published in the British Medical Journal (July 18, 1964) and its 7th revised edition in 2013. The need for written informed consent was waived by the ethics committee due to the retrospective nature of the analysis.

2.2. Patients

Included were 81 patients between 11.4 and 83.2 years of age (mean 45.6) with imaging-diagnosed PA treated at our Gamma Knife center. MRI had been performed within four weeks before their radiosurgery, with available follow-up data after an interval of six months or longer (range 6.7–105.5 months, mean 40.4; Table 1). Tumor volumes ranged between 0.18 and 40.33 cm3 (mean 6.30).

2.3. Sample Size Calculation

The prospective sample size calculation was based on a pilot experiment with 30 patients and required 36 patients for alpha=0.05, beta=0.20, and AUC=0.76 (Medcalc 14.8.1; MedCalc Software Ltd., Ostend, Belgium). These 30 patients were included in the final cohort. The actually obtained AUCs for the calculated scores integrating radiomics and CP features ranged between 0.759 and 0.928, with a final sample size of 81 patients in T1w, 81 in CE-T1w, 48 in T2w, and 41 in FLAIR.

2.4. Gamma Knife Treatment

The Gamma Knife technique was previously described.7 On the day of the treatment, after placing a stereotactic G frame (Elekta AB), under sedation and local anesthesia, contrast-enhanced 3D computed tomography (CT) imaging was obtained. Pretreatment MRI sequences, acquired less than four weeks before, were then coregistered to the stereotactic CT. Treatments were planned on a Leksell GammaPlan 10.1 workstation (Elekta Instrument AB, Stockholm, Sweden) carefully respecting dose constraints, particularly of the optic apparatus.
The margin dose varied from 12 to 40 Gy (mean 20.5 Gy), depending on tumor size, location, and hormone status (Table 1). Forty-nine PAs were treated in a single session, with margin doses ranging from 12 to 35 Gy (mean 17.8 Gy). According to our institutional protocol, lesions abutting the anterior optic pathway are treated using hypofractionated radiosurgery (HFSRS). Thirty-two PAs were treated with 5.0 to 9.0 Gy (mean 6.1 Gy) for 3 to 5 days (mean 4.03). Biologically effective dose (BED) is routinely used to compare doses of different dose-fraction regimens relying on the widely accepted Linear Quadratic model, with its known limitations for high doses [9] HFSRS doses can be converted to single fraction equivalent doses (SFED) to intuitively compare radiation effects to conventional physical doses.[10] Margin SFED varied from 11.1 – 35.0 Gy (mean 16.2 Gy), applying an α/β ratio of 2.47 Gy for nonfunctional PAs or 4.91 Gy for functioning Pas [11,12].

2.5. MRI

MRI was performed on a 3-Tesla scanner (Achieva; Philips, Eindhoven, Netherlands). 3D T1-weighted non-contrast (T1w), contrast-enhanced (CE-T1w), T2w, FLAIR sequences were acquired with the following sequence parameters:
  • 3D-T1w magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition (MPRAGE) sequence: gradient echo, TR/TE/TI 6.8/3.2/900ms, flip angle 8°, measured voxel size 0.6*0.6*1.0 mm, before and after intravenous injection of contrast medium.
  • T2w sequence: TR/TE 3693.8/80ms, 150 transversal slices, thickness 1mm, matrix 512×512.
  • Fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequence: TR/TE/TI 11,000/120/2800ms, 90 transversal slices, thickness 2mm, matrix 512×512.

2.6. Postprocessing

In all 81 patients, PA volumes were delineated and measured from CE-T1w images on the Leksell GammaPlan workstation. MRI sequences were coregistered to the stereotactic 3D contrast-enhanced CT acquired on treatment day. Image sets were verified for high image quality. Sequences with artifacts were excluded.

2.7. Follow-up

Imaging and clinical follow-up were performed every six months for the first two years after GKRS and annually thereafter.

2.8. Feature Extraction

The radiomics analysis was conducted using the open-source Pyradiomics plugin, integrated into 3D Slicer (version 5.6.1) [13]. The Pyradiomics parameter file (Supplementary file 1), instructed the computation of all available image transformations and feature types, resulting in the total of 2156 features per MRI scan.
Feature extraction was performed on the original images (107 features) and on images transformed by: wavelet, square, square root, logarithm, gradient, exponential, Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG) and Local Binary Pattern (LBP 2D) filters. For detailed descriptions of the extracted radiomics features please see: https://pyradiomics.readthedocs.io/en/latest/features.html.

2.9. Model Selection

Features were pre-selected by discarding those without a significant correlation with the PA volume change outcome, based on Pearson’s correlation test (Statistica 12.0, StatSoft, Hamburg, Germany). Predictive models were constructed using the features selected by LASSO regression with integrated 10-fold cross-validation and the following classifiers: random forest, naïve Bayes, kNN, logistic regression, neural network and SVM (Orange Data Mining, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia).

2.10. Evaluation of Predictive Performance

The PA volume change per natural logarithm of time was chosen as the endpoint to account for the near-exponential decrease of tumor volume over time. [15] Beyond an initial 6-months phase, our data indicates that most PA volumes follow an exponential trend. To compare volume changes during long FU periods (FUP), tumor volume change per natural logarithm of time is more accurate than volume change per time. This was calculated as the difference in tumor volume before SRS and at the last follow-up, divided by the initial volume and the natural logarithm of the time since SRS to the last FU: [15]
                         Volume at last FUP - Initial volume at SRS
Relative volume change per ln(month) = ---------------------------------------------------------
                                  Initial Volume * ln(FUP)
Predictive performance was assessed using ROC analysis (IBM SPSS v28, Armonk, NY, USA; Orange Data Mining), with statistical analyses considering both continuous independent variables and continuous or categorized dependent outcomes.

2.11. Validation

Validation involved bootstrap for ROC analysis and split-sample cross-validation via LASSO. Besides LASSO cross-validation in the training folds (51 patients), models were validated on eight random test folds (30 patients).

3. Results

3.1. Patients’ Characteristics

The treatment results are presented in Table 1. After a mean FUP of 40.4 months, the control rate was 98.8%. As there are no standardized radiographic criteria for assessing PA treatment response, we used the RANO criteria [17] stated by Imber et al. for PA response characterization.[18] Partial response was achieved in 60 [74.1%] PAs, with stable disease found in 20 [24.7%] of patients, while one [1.2%] progressive PA was observed at last follow-up. The volumetric outcome was notably better in functioning PAs, with a volume reduction of 2.21% per month, compared to a lower volume reduction per month of 1.22% for non-functional PA. This difference in volumetric response is probably attributed to the significantly higher doses used in treating functioning PAs, required to obtain hormone remission.

3.2. Experimental Design

The workflow of the study is shown in Figure 1. Models were developed for individual modalities (CP, T1w, CE-T1w, T2w, FLAIR) and combined modalities (T1w+CE-T1w, CP+T1w+CE-T1w), focusing on T1w and CE-T1w MRI sequences available for all 81 patients. This facilitated multi-sequence model construction and validation across eight test folds. Tumor volume response prediction used R2 from linear LASSO (Table 2) for continuous outcomes, and logit LASSO with six classifiers for categorized outcomes, using AUC and accuracy for evaluation (Table 3 and Table 4).

3.3. The Predictive Models for PA Response to Radiosurgery

The constructed predictive models were initially tested against the continuous, uncategorized tumor volume response outcomes (Table 2). Thereby, T2w showed the best association with the outcomes (R2 =0.665), followed by the most comprehensive models: CP+T1w+CE-T1w (R2 =0.584) and T1w+CE-T1w (R2=0.502). The optimal performance of T2w was notable, but because of its availability in a smaller number of patients, this result was interpreted as preliminary. Our focus was thus directed towards CP+T1w+CE-T1w, identified as the second-best performer (Table 2).
The optimal cutpoint(s) for the comprehensive model, combining CP and radiomics features (CP+T1w+CE-T1w), were identified by testing against six different cutpoints in the outcome (Figure 2). The cutpoint of -0.25% tumor volumetric response per natural logarithm of time was identified as the most suitable for prognosis using the available CP and radiomics features (Figure 2).
After determining the optimal cutpoint for outcome categorization, the predictive performance of individual CP parameters was evaluated using the t-test for continuous and the chi-square test for binary values (Table 3). Age, fraction number, accumulated dose, SFED, and hormone secretion status showed significant associations with the -0.25% outcome (Table 3). Models using only CP or CE-T1w features had the weakest link to the -0.25% outcome, while those with T1w features performed best. Notably, there was no significant difference in predictive performance among T1w, T1w+CE-T1w, and CP+T1w+CE-T1w models, as confirmed by an independent-samples t-test. To reduce the feature burden on LASSO, features were pre-selected based on their Pearson correlation with the outcome cutpoint at -0.25% to lighten the LASSO's feature load, enhancing the models' prognostic performance. These features were refined through L1 LASSO selection, with the top eight used in classification by random forest, naïve Bayes, kNN, logistic regression, neural network, and SVM classifiers (Table 4).Comparing classifier performance using the CP+T1w+CE-T1w model for the -0.25% outcome cutpoint, revealed that logistic regression, neural network, and SVM showed similar classification performance in test folds, with random forest, naïve Bayes, and kNN performing less effectively (Table 4).
Table 5 details selected features and coefficients for the model incorporating CP, T1w, and CE-T1w features, highlighting the inclusion of only one CE-T1w feature, likely due to its inferior predictive performance (Table 5).

4. Discussion

This initial study demonstrates that radiomic signatures built on pre-GKRS MRI data can be used to predict tumor volumetric response to radiosurgery. The computed radiomic models outperformed the benchmark model, which included only clinicopathological features. The T1w and T2w models were the best predictive performers, while the dual sequence T1w+CE-T1w and the merged CP+T1w+T2w models did not provide a statistically significant improvement over the single modality models, as judged by the t-test. All models, except for T2w and FLAIR (due to their low numbers), underwent additional evaluation for generalizability using cross-validation. The results demonstrated that the predictive performance in the training folds was largely retained in unseen test folds, with the remaining AUCs consistently exceeding 0.90.
Radiomics analysis treats MRI as minable data by extracting quantitative computational features. It gains importance as clinical imaging becomes increasingly widespread. To the best of our knowledge, no prior studies have employed texture or radiomics analyses on pituitary adenomas. Our group and others have performed texture analyses on meningiomas, [19] vestibular schwannomas [20,21,22] and brain metastases.[23,24]. In a previous study investigating the use of radiomics features to develop a treatment prognosis following SRS, our group applied radiomics to pre-radiosurgical MRI to predict the long-term outcomes of WHO grade 1 meningiomas after SRS, achieving satisfactory predictive performance, as evidenced by an AUC reaching 0.88.[7] Other groups used radiomics to predict outcome and pseudoprogression of vestibular schwannoma treated with SRS.[25,26] Several studies explored radiomics to predict local control of brain metastases [27,28,29,30] or arteriovenous malformations [31,32,33] after SRS using radiomics.
Of the four sequences investigated, we found that T2w provided the best predictive performance for volumetric PA change (Table 2). This result agrees with our previous findings applying texture analysis to predict volumetric outcomes of SRS in benign meningiomas and vestibular schwannomas. For benign meningiomas, we found that the histogram parameter standard deviation of voxel intensities of T2w images correlated best with volumetric change after SRS.[19] Increased T2w intensity values have been reported to relate to a soft consistency of meningiomas, increased vascularity, cellular atypia, and angioblastic or melanocytic components as well as cystic degeneration and ischemic necrosis.[34,35,36] For vestibular schwannomas, kurtosis of T2w image intensity values predicted progression best, with a sensitivity and specificity of 71% and 78%, while the minimum of the T2w voxel intensity values correlated significantly with the final regression of tumor volume per month.[20]
Several studies investigated the use of MRI to preoperatively assess tumor consistency in PAs, as tumor consistency is a critical factor in surgical planning. Most existing studies support the ability of T2w to predict intraoperative consistency, while T1w has not been shown to offer any predictive value.[37] Hypointensity on T2w likely correlates with firmer tumors, possibly attributable to their increased collagen content and vascularity. In comparison, softer tumors tend to be hyperintense on T2w, which may relate to higher water content and/or cystic components.[38,39,40] Although multiple preoperative PA consistency assessment methods have been studied, none demonstrated sufficient accuracy and reliability in clinical use.[41] More recently, radiomics and machine learning-based models have achieved high precision and good AUC values.[41] Wan et al. developed a radiomics model built on combined T1w/CE-T1w/T2w images, with eleven imaging features exhibiting statistically significant differentiation between soft and hard PAs, providing an excellent performance with an AUC of 0.90.[42]
In functional PAs, in addition to volumetric tumor control, hormone remission is a mandatory treatment objective. As more genes must be silenced to achieve hormone remission, substantially higher PA margin doses are required. Because of higher margin doses, we observed a more favorable volumetric response in functional PAs (mean volume change/month -2.21%), compared to non-functioning PAs (mean volume change/month -1.22%). A preliminary analysis revealed enhanced associations within subdivided PA cohorts, achieving an AUC close to 1. Due to the small sample size of functional PA treatments, we were unable to separately perform a reliable statistical analysis in the subset of functional PA tumors. However, our findings warrant further investigation.
The high dimensionality of radiomics analysis is both its strength and its weakness, as its high dimensionality has been widely criticized. To address this issue, we pre-selected features by excluding those that were not significantly associated with the outcome, resulting in an extensive reduction in dimensionality. Additionally, our study showed that adding CP features to multi-sequence imaging data (CP+T1w+CE-T1w) did not improve predictive performance over single-sequence radiomics models.

5. Limitations

Although the patient group was highly homogeneous and vastly exceeded the sample size requirement, its size still posed a limitation. To enhance the clinical validity of the reported feature association with PA volume response to GKRS, further studies in larger patient groups are warranted. The relatively short follow-up time and the retrospective design of the prognostic models were additional limitations. Moreover, predictive studies necessitate confirming the generalizability of the acquired findings through external validation, while internal prognostic validation in unseen test folds, that were not part of the development cohort, was already carried out within this study. Therefore, further validation in external cohorts is needed to establish the prognostic clinical validity of the obtained predictive models. Additionally, despite the objective nature of the computational analysis technique, the workflow included residual subjectivity during the tumor VOI segmentation.

6. Conclusions

We demonstrated that a radiomics-based model using conventional MR imaging achieved excellent predictive classification and generalization performance, surpassing a model based on clinicopathological parameters. By achieving reliable predictions of the volumetric outcomes of SRS, radiomics might enable individualized treatment strategies, ultimately contributing to improved treatment outcomes for patients undergoing SRS for pituitary adenomas.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at the website of this paper posted on Preprints.org Supplemental Digital Content 1. Supplemental Methods. A parameters file for customizing radiomics analysis in the Pyradiomics software is provided for each MRI sequence.

Blinded for review

(CEI-290).

Disclosures

The authors have no personal, financial, or institutional interest in any of the drugs, materials, or devices described in this article.

Code and Data Availability

The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments/Funding Sources

This work was supported by the University Instituto Tecnologico de Santo Domingo (INTEC), Dominican Republic, grant number CBA-220903-2024-P-1.

Author Contributions

Conception and design: Herwin Speckter and Marko Radulovic; Data collection: Herwin Speckter, Marko Radulovic, Erwin Lazo, Giancarlo Hernandez, Jose Bido, Diones Rivera, Luis Suazo, Santiago Valenzuela, Maria Gonzalez-Curi, Peter Stoeter, Velicko Vranes; Data analysis and interpretation: All authors; Manuscript writing: Herwin Speckter and Marko Radulovic; All authors reviewed the manuscript.

References

  1. Trifiletti, D.M.; Dutta, S.W.; Lee, C.C.; Sheehan, J.P. Pituitary Tumor Radiosurgery. Prog Neurol Surg. 2019, 34, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kotecha, R.; Sahgal, A.; Rubens, M.; De Salles, A.; Fariselli, L.; Pollock, B.E.; Levivier, M.; Ma, L.; Paddick, I.; Regis, J.; Sheehan, J.; Yomo, S.; Suh, J.H. Stereotactic radiosurgery for non-functioning pituitary adenomas: meta-analysis and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society practice opinion. Neuro Oncol. 2020, 22, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  3. Lehrer, E.J.; Kowalchuk, R.O.; Trifiletti, D.M.; Sheehan, J.P. The Role of Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Functioning and Nonfunctioning Pituitary Adenomas. Neurol India. 2023, 71 (Supplement), S133–S139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dayawansa, S.; Abbas, S.O.; Mantziaris, G.; Dumot, C.; Donahue, J.H.; Sheehan, J.P. Volumetric Assessment of Nonfunctional Pituitary Adenoma Treated With Stereotactic Radiosurgery: An Assessment of Long-Term Response. Neurosurgery. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Pomeraniec, I.J.; Xu, Z.; Lee, C.C.; Yang, H.C.; Chytka, T.; Liscak, R.; Martinez-Alvarez, R.; Martinez-Moreno, N.; Attuati, L.; Picozzi, P.; Kondziolka, D.; Mureb, M.; Bernstein, K.; Mathieu, D.; Maillet, M.; Ogino, A.; Long, H.; Kano, H.; Lunsford, L.D.; Zacharia, B.E.; Mau, C.; Tuanquin, L.C.; Cifarelli, C.; Arsanious, D.; Hack, J.; Warnick, R.E.; Strickland, B.A.; Zada, G.; Chang, E.L.; Speckter, H.; Patel, S.; Ding, D.; Sheehan, D.; Sheehan, K.; Kvint, S.; Buch, L.Y.; Haber, A.R.; Shteinhart, J.; Vance, M.L.; Sheehan, J.P. Dose to neuroanatomical structures surrounding pituitary adenomas and the effect of stereotactic radiosurgery on neuroendocrine function: an international multicenter study. J Neurosurg. 2021, 136, 813–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Mantziaris, G.; Pikis, S.; Chytka, T.; Liščák, R.; Sheehan, K.; Sheehan, D.; Peker, S.; Samanci, Y.; Bindal, S.K.; Niranjan, A.; Lunsford, L.D.; Kaur, R.; Madan, R.; Tripathi, M.; Pangal, D.J.; Strickland, B.A.; Zada, G.; Langlois, A.M.; Mathieu, D.; Warnick, R.E.; Patel, S.; Minier, Z.; Speckter, H.; Xu, Z.; Kormath Anand, R.; Sheehan, J.P. Adjuvant versus on-progression Gamma Knife radiosurgery for residual nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas: a matched-cohort analysis. J Neurosurg. 2022, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Speckter H, Radulovic M, Trivodaliev K, Vranes V, Joaquin J, Hernandez W, Mota A, Bido J, Hernandez G, Rivera D, Suazo L, Valenzuela S, Stoeter P. MRI radiomics in the prediction of the volumetric response in meningiomas after gamma knife radiosurgery. J Neurooncol. 2022, 159, 281–291. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Djuričić, G.J.; Ahammer, H.; Rajković, S.; Kovač, J.D.; Milošević, Z.; Sopta, J.P.; Radulovic, M. Directionally Sensitive Fractal Radiomics Compatible With Irregularly Shaped Magnetic Resonance Tumor Regions of Interest: Association With Osteosarcoma Chemoresistance. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023, 57, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. McMahon, S.J. The linear quadratic model: usage, interpretation and challenges. Phys Med Biol 2018, 64, 01TR01. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Speckter, H.; Santana, J.; Miches, I.; Hernandez, G.; Bido, J.; Rivera, D.; Suazo, L.; Valenzuela, S.; Garcia, J.; Stoeter, P. Assessment of the alpha/beta ratio of the optic pathway to adjust hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery regimens for perioptic lesions. J Radiat Oncol 2019, 8, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Speckter, H.; Hernandez, G.; Bido, J.; Rivera, D.; Suazo, L.; Valenzuela, S.; Santana, J.; Hernandez, W.; Moreno, L.; Peralta, I.; Paulino, J.; Stoeter, P. Assessment of the alpha/beta Ratios of Pituitary Adenomas and Craniopharyngiomas. Presented at the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) meeting Milan, Italy, June 2022.
  12. Speckter, H.; Santana, J.; Lara, G.; Bido, J.; Hernandez, G.; Rivera, D.; Suazo, L.; Valenzuela, S.; Stoeter, P. Assessment Of The Alpha/Beta Ratios Of Pituitary Adenomas And Craniopharyngiomas For The Quantification Of Single Fraction Equivalent Dose Benefits From Hypofractionated Radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. [CrossRef]
  13. JJM van Griethuysen, J.J.M.; A Fedorov, C. Parmar, A.; Hosny, N. Aucoin, V. Narayan, R.H.H. Beets-Tan, J.C. Fillion-Robin, S. Pieper, H.J.W.L. Aerts. Computational Radiomics System to Decode the Radiographic Phenotype. Cancer Res. 2017, 7, e104–e107. [Google Scholar]
  14. Paddick, I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans: technical note. J Neurosurg 2000, 93 (Suppl 3), 219–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Speckter, H.; Palque-Santos, S.; Mota-Gonzalez, R.; Bido, J.; Hernandez, G.; Rivera, D.; Suazo, L.; Valenzuela, S.; Gonzalez-Curi, M.; Stoeter, P. Can Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) maps replace Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) maps to predict the volumetric response of meningiomas to Gamma Knife Radiosurgery? J Neurooncol. 2023, 161, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. B. Efron. Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife. The Annals of Statistics 1979, 7, 1–26.
  17. Huang, R.Y.; Bi, W.L.; Weller, M.; Kaley, T.; Blakeley, J.; Dunn, I.; Galanis, E.; Preusser, M.; McDermott, M.; Rogers, L.; Raizer, J.; Schiff, D.; Soffietti, R.; Tonn, J.C.; Vogelbaum, M.; Weber, D.; Reardon, D.A.; Wen, P.Y. Proposed response assessment and endpoints for meningioma clinical trials: report from the response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. Neuro-Oncology 2019, 21, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Imber, B.S.; Lin, A.L.; Zhang, Z.; Keshavamurthy, K.N.; Deipolyi, A.R.; Beal, K.; Cohen, M.A.; Tabar, V.; DeAngelis, L.M.; Geer, E.B.; Yang, T.J.; Young, R.J. Comparison of Radiographic Approaches to Assess Treatment Response in Pituitary Adenomas: Is RECIST or RANO Good Enough? J Endocr Soc. 2019, 3, 1693–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  19. Speckter, H.; Bido, J.; Hernandez, G.; Rivera, D.; Suazo, L.; Valenzuela, S.; Miches, I.; Oviedo, J.; Gonzalez, C.; Stoeter, P. Pretreatment texture analysis of routine MR images and shape analysis of the diffusion tensor for prediction of volumetric response after radiosurgery for meningioma. J Neurosurg 2018, 129, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Speckter, H.; Santana, J.; Bido, J.; Hernandez, G.; Rivera, D.; Suazo, L.; Valenzuela, S.; Oviedo, J.; Gonzalez, C.F.; Stoeter, P. Texture Analysis of Standard Magnetic Resonance Images to Predict Response to Gamma Knife Radiosurgery in Vestibular Schwannomas. World Neurosurg. 2019, 132, e228–e234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Langenhuizen, P.; Sebregts, S.H.P.; Zinger, S.; Leenstra, S.; Verheul, J.B.; de With, P.H.N. Prediction of transient tumor enlargement using MRI tumor texture after radiosurgery on vestibular schwannoma. Med Phys 2020, 47, 1692–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. George-Jones, N.A.; Wang, K.; Wang, J.; Hunter, J.B. Prediction of Vestibular Schwannoma Enlargement After Radiosurgery Using Tumor Shape and MRI Texture Features. Otol Neurotol. 2021, 42, e348–e354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zheng, Y.; Geng, D.; Yu, T.; Xia, W.; She, D.; Liu, L.; Yin, B. Prognostic value of pretreatment MRI texture features in breast cancer brain metastasis treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery. Acta Radiol. 2021, 62, 1208–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Park JH, Choi BS, Han JH, Kim CY, Cho J, Bae YJ, Sunwoo L, Kim JH. MRI Texture Analysis for the Prediction of Stereotactic Radiosurgery Outcomes in Brain Metastases from Lung Cancer. J Clin Med. 2021, 10, 237. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  25. Langenhuizen, P.; Zinger, S.; Leenstra, S.; Kunst, H.P.M.; Mulder, J.J.S.; Hanssens, P.E.J.; de With, P.H.N.; Verheul, J.B. Radiomics based prediction of long-term treatment response of vestibular schwannomas following stereotactic radiosurgery. Otol Neurotol 2020, 41, e1321–e1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Yang, H.C.; Wu, C.C.; Lee, C.C.; Huang, H.E.; Lee, W.K.; Chung, W.Y.; Wu, H.M.; Guo, W.Y.; Wu, Y.T.; Lu, C.F. Prediction of pseudoprogression and long-term outcome of vestibular schwannoma after Gamma Knife radiosurgery based on preradiosurgical MR radiomics. Radiother Oncol 2021, 155, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mouraviev, A.; Detsky, J.; Sahgal, A.; Ruschin, M.; Lee, Y.K.; Karam, I.; Heyn, C.; Stanisz, G.J.; Martel, A.L. Use of radiomics for the prediction of local control of brain metastases after stereotactic radiosurgery. Neuro Oncol 2020, 22, 797–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liao, C.Y.; Lee, C.C.; Yang, H.C.; Chen, C.J.; Chung, W.Y.; Wu, H.M.; Guo, W.Y.; Liu, R.S.; Lu, C.F. Enhancement of radiosurgical treatment outcome prediction using MRI radiomics in patients with non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases. Cancers (Basel) 2021, 13, 4030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, H.; Xue, J.; Qu, T.; Bernstein, K.; Chen, T.; Barbee, D.; Silverman, J.S.; Kondziolka, D. Predicting local failure of brain metastases after stereotactic radiosurgery with radiomics on planning MR images and dose maps. Med Phys 2021, 48, 5522–5530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mulford, K.; Chen, C.; Dusenbery, K.; Yuan, J.; Hunt, M.A.; Chen, C.C.; Sperduto, P.; Watanabe, Y.; Wilke, C. A radiomics-based model for predicting local control of resected brain metastases receiving adjuvant, S. R.S. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2021, 29, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gao, D.; Meng, X.; Jin, H.; Liu, A.; Sun, S. Assessment of gamma knife radiosurgery for unruptured cerebral arteriovenous malformations based on multi-parameter radiomics of, M. R.I. Magn Reson Imaging 2022, 92, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Meng, X.; Gao, D.; Jin, H.; Wang, K.; Bao, E.; Liu, A.; Li, Y.; Sun, S. Factors affecting volume reduction velocity for arteriovenous malformations after treatment with dose-stage stereotactic radiosurgery. Front Oncol 2021, 11, 769533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Meng, X.; Gao, D.; He, H.; Sun, S.; Liu, A.; Jin, H.; Li, Y. A machine learning model predicts the outcome of SRS for residual arteriovenous malformations after partial embolization: a realworld clinical obstacle. World Neurosurg 2022, 163, e73–e82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Chen TC, Zee CS, Miller CA, Weiss MH, Tang G, Chin L, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging and pathological correlates of meningiomas. Neurosurgery 1992, 31, 1015–1021.
  35. Suzuki Y, Sugimoto T, Shibuya M, Sugita K, Patel SJ: Meningiomas: correlation between MRI characteristics and operative findings including consistency. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1994, 129, 39–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Maiuri F, Iaconetta G, de Divitiis O, Cirillo S, Di Salle F, De Caro ML: Intracranial meningiomas: correlations between MR imaging and histology. Eur J Radiol 1999, 31, 69–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Yao, A.; Rutland, J.W.; Verma, G.; Banihashemi, A.; Padormo, F.; Tsankova, N.M.; Delman, B.N.; Shrivastava, R.K.; Balchandani, P. Pituitary adenoma consistency: Direct correlation of ultrahigh field 7T MRI with histopathological analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2020, 126, 108931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. BSitthinamsuwan, I. Khampalikit, S. Nunta-aree, P. Srirabheebhat, T. Witthiwej, A. Nitising, Predictors of meningioma consistency: a study in 243 consecutive cases. Acta Neurochir. 2012, 154, 1383–1389. [Google Scholar]
  39. Yamaguchi, N.; Kawase, T.; Sagoh, M.; Ohira, T.; Shiga, H.; Toya, S. Prediction of consistency of meningiomas with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging, Surg. Neurol. 1997, 48, 579–583. [Google Scholar]
  40. K.A. Smith, J.D. Leever, R.B. Chamoun, Predicting consistency of meningioma by magnetic resonance imaging. J. Neurol. Surg. B Skull Base 2015, 76, 225–229. [CrossRef]
  41. Černý, M.; Sedlák, V.; Lesáková, V.; Francůz, P.; Netuka, D. Methods of preoperative prediction of pituitary adenoma consistency: a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev. 2022, 46, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Wan, T.; Wu, C.; Meng, M.; Liu, T.; Li, C.; Ma, J.; Qin, Z. Radiomic Features on Multiparametric MRI for Preoperative Evaluation of Pituitary Macroadenomas Consistency: Preliminary Findings. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2022, 55, 1491–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Workflow of radiomics analysis. MRIs were acquired before GKRS in four sequences and tumor VOIs were segmented. Before radiomics analysis, images underwent z-score normalization, resampling, and interpolation. All feature classes and image transformations produced by all available filters were calculated and feature values were further normalized by z-score. Features lacking significant association with the outcome were discarded. LASSO was used for further feature selection, followed by machine learning classifiers to train a prognostic model, and evaluate its generalizability in the test folds.
Figure 1. Workflow of radiomics analysis. MRIs were acquired before GKRS in four sequences and tumor VOIs were segmented. Before radiomics analysis, images underwent z-score normalization, resampling, and interpolation. All feature classes and image transformations produced by all available filters were calculated and feature values were further normalized by z-score. Features lacking significant association with the outcome were discarded. LASSO was used for further feature selection, followed by machine learning classifiers to train a prognostic model, and evaluate its generalizability in the test folds.
Preprints 148435 g001
Figure 2. The ROC analysis of the comprehensive prognostic score CP+T1w+CE-T1w against the outcome categorized by the six indicated cutpoints. This score includes the CP features and radiomics features combined from two MRI sequences. The tumor volume response ranged between -0.80% and +0.54% per month (X-axis). Using logit LASSO, we selected eight features for classification by random forest, naïve Bayes, kNN, logistic regression, neural network and SVM. The AUC (blue line) and accuracy (orange line) values on the Y-axis signify the optimal prognostic performance achieved at each cutpoint by SVM which provided the optimal classification. Increasing values of the CP+T1w+CE-T1w score were associated with lower tumor volume response to GKRS.
Figure 2. The ROC analysis of the comprehensive prognostic score CP+T1w+CE-T1w against the outcome categorized by the six indicated cutpoints. This score includes the CP features and radiomics features combined from two MRI sequences. The tumor volume response ranged between -0.80% and +0.54% per month (X-axis). Using logit LASSO, we selected eight features for classification by random forest, naïve Bayes, kNN, logistic regression, neural network and SVM. The AUC (blue line) and accuracy (orange line) values on the Y-axis signify the optimal prognostic performance achieved at each cutpoint by SVM which provided the optimal classification. Increasing values of the CP+T1w+CE-T1w score were associated with lower tumor volume response to GKRS.
Preprints 148435 g002
Table 1. Patients, treatment characteristics and treatment results.
Table 1. Patients, treatment characteristics and treatment results.
all PAs functional PAs nonfunctional PAs
Patient and treatment characteristics Value Range Value Range Value Range
Number of patients 81 - 29 [36%] - 52 [64%] -
Age in years (mean, range) 45.6 (11.4 / 83.2) 38.3 (11.4 / 65.5) 49.7 (21.2 / 83.2)
Pre-SRS tumor volume in cm3 (mean, range) 6.30 (0.16 / 40.33) 6.00 (0.18 / 33.54) 6.39 (0.16 / 40.33)
previous RT, SRS 0 - 0 - 0 -
previous surgery 69 [85%] - 25 [86%] - 44 [85%] -
KPS before SRS (mean, range) 83.3 (60 / 100) 82.7 (60 / 100) 83.8 (60 / 100)
Single fraction SRS treatments 49 [60%] - 13 [45%] - 36 [69%] -
Hypofractionated SRS treatments 32 [40%] - 16 [55%] - 16 [31%] -
Number of Fractions (mean, range) 2.21 (1 / 5) 2.83 (1 / 5) 1.86 (1 / 4)
Gradient index (mean, range) 2.83 (2.42 / 3.60) 2.82 (2.48 / 3.48) 2.83 (2.42 / 3.60)
Coverage index (mean, range) 96.7% (91.0% / 100%) 96.8% (91.0% / 100%) 96.6% (91.0% / 100%)
Selectivity index (mean, range) 67.8% (18.0% /89.0%) 63.6% (18.0% / 85.0%) 70.3% (39.0% / 89.0%)
Paddick conformity index (mean, range) 65.5% (17.6% / 83.7%) 61.5% (17.6% / 80.8%) 67.8% (39.0% / 83.7%)
Margin physical Dose in Gy (mean, range) 20.5 (12 / 40) 26.7 (15 / 40) 17.0 (12 / 24)
Margin BED in Gy (mean, range) 100.9 (40.4 / 284.5) 106.2 (40.4 / 284.5) 97.8 (60.5 / 181.9)
Margin SFED in Gy (mean, range) 16.2 (11.1 / 35.0) 19.6 (11.8 / 35.0) 14.2 (11.1 / 20.0)
Treatment results Value Range Value Range Value Range
Follow up period in months (mean, range) 40.4 (6.7 / 105.5) 38.6 (6.7 / 85.1) 41.4 (7.2 / 105.5)
Complete response 0 [0%] - 0 [0%] - 0 [0%] -
Partial response (PR, decrease by ≥30%) 60 [74.1%] - 27 [93%] - 33 [63.5%] -
Stable disease (SD, neither PR, no PD) 20 [24.7%] - 2 [7%] - 18 [34.6%] -
Progressive disease (PD, increase by ≥20%) 1 [1.2%] - 0 [0%] - 1 [1.9%] -
Absolute volume change in cm3 (mean, range) -2.80 (-15.83 / 1.80) -3.35 (-15.00 / -0.06) -2.49 (-15.83 / 1.80)
Relative volume change (mean, range) -45.7% (-90.2% / 92.7%) -55.4% (-81.0% / -27.6%) -40.2% (-90.2% / 92.7%)
Volume change per month (mean, range) -1.58% (-9.84% / 1.75%) -2.21% (-9.84% / -0.57%) -1.22% (-4.83% / 1.75%)
Abbreviations: PA, pituitary adenoma; SRS, stereotactic radiosurgery; RT, radiotherapy; KPS, Karnofsky Performance Status; BED, biologically effective dose; SFED, single fraction equivalent dose
Table 2. Association of models with continuous uncategorized PA volumetric response outcomes a.
Table 2. Association of models with continuous uncategorized PA volumetric response outcomes a.
Test folds (10)
Model R2 Selected l
CP 0.272 0.0092
T1w 0.464 0.0086
CE-T1w 0.281 0.0130
T1w+CE-T1w 0.502 0.0144
CP+T1w+CE-T1w 0.584 0.0138
T2w 0.665 0.0115
FLAIR 0.312 0.0149
a Linear LASSO regression was used to evaluate the association of models with the continuous, uncategorized, tumor volume response outcome.
Table 3. The association of the clinical parameters and models against the outcome categorized by a cutoff at -0.25% tumor volume change per natural logarithm of time.
Table 3. The association of the clinical parameters and models against the outcome categorized by a cutoff at -0.25% tumor volume change per natural logarithm of time.
Clinical parameters
T-test in the entire cohort
Featurea T-statistic P-value Mean±SD Mean Difference±SD
Age -3.38 0.001 45.5±14.2 10.6 ± 3.0
Fraction number 2.62 0.011 2.2±1.6 -0.80 ± 0.32
Dose per fraction -0.06 0.953 13.1±7.2 -0.26 ± 1.4
Accumulated dose 4.99 0.000 20.6±6.7 -5.7 ± 1.2
BED 0.368 0.714 100.6±44.6 -4.7 ± 9.1
SFED 2.588 0.012 16.2±5.0 -2.5 ± 0.93
Coverage 0.711 0.479 96.7±2.0 -0.32 ± 0.47
Selectivity 0.008 0.994 67.8±11.6 0.37 ± 2.7
PCI 0.096 0.924 0.66±0.11 0.001 ± 0.027
BOT 0.641 0.523 40.9±24.6 -4.9 ± 5.2
Chi-square test in the entire cohort
Pearson
Chi-square
P-value Gamma P-value
Functionality b 0.42 0.001 0.81 <0.001
Modelsc
AUC and Accuracy in the test folds (8)d
Model AUC Accuracy True positives True negatives
CP 0.846 ± 0.046 0.800 ± 0.049 0.542 ± 0.123 0.770 ± 0.049
T1w* 0.924 ± 0.022 0.859 ± 0.054 0.823 ± 0.049 0.850 ± 0.035
CE-T1w 0.759 ± 0.076 0.724 ± 0.091 0.614 ± 0.049 0.830 ± 0.113
T1w + CE-T1w* 0.899 ± 0.054 0.859 ± 0.062 0.810 ± 0.131 0.873 ± 0.089
CP + T1w + CE-T1w* 0.909 ± 0.016 0.854 ± 0.024 0.845 ± 0.051 0.866 ± 0.101
a Independent samples t-test was used for variables with continuous values. Equality of variances was evaluated by Levene’s test. b The chi-square test was used for the functionality variable because of its ordinal categorical values. c Models were constructed by combining the specified groups of features.d The test folds (30 patients) were reserved for the final evaluation to provide an unbiased assessment of the model's performance on completely new, unseen data. Test folds were distinct from the validation folds used in the development cohort (51 patients). The presented AUC and accuracy values were obtained using an optimal classifier for each model.* Models that significantly differed from the benchmark CP model, according to an independent-samples t-test.Abbreviations: PCI, Paddick conformity index; BOT, beam on time; SFED, single fraction equivalent dose; BED, biologically effective dose; CP, clinicopathological parameters;
Table 4. Prognostic performance of the indicated classifiers applied to the comprehensive CP+T1w+ CE-T1W models a.
Table 4. Prognostic performance of the indicated classifiers applied to the comprehensive CP+T1w+ CE-T1W models a.
Averages of prognostic evaluators ± SD
Train folds (8) Test folds (8)
Classifier AUC Accuracy AUC Accuracy
Random Forest 0.941±0.033 0.867±0.060 0.846 ± 0.048 0.773 ± 0.066
Naive Bayes 0.896±0.052 0.804±0.086 0.795 ± 0.073 0.704 ± 0.088
kNN 0.962±0.028 0.892±0.049 0.845 ± 0.056 0.790 ± 0.028
Logistic Regression 0.991±0.015 0.950±0.042 0.877 ± 0.031 0.815 ± 0.064
Neural Network 0.990±0.020 0.957±0.042 0.878 ± 0.033 0.824 ± 0.065
SVM 0.977±0.017 0.927±0.045 0.889 ± 0.043 0.820 ± 0.045
a LASSO selected eight features from each randomly chosen development fold (training and validation folds), including 51 patients, followed by classification using the specified classifiers. Subsequently, the models were assessed on the separate, unseen test folds consisting of 30 patients. Abbreviations: SVM, support vector machines; kNN, k-nearest neighbors.
Table 5. Feature composition of the prognostically best performing model incorporating the CP+T1w+CE-T1w featuresa.
Table 5. Feature composition of the prognostically best performing model incorporating the CP+T1w+CE-T1w featuresa.
Feature B 95% CI P
Age 1.192 -18.8 122.6 0.015
Accumulated dose -1.020 -204.3 13.4 0.084
Orig_firstorder_Entropy_T1w -5.144 -989.7 -3.30 0.002
Log_gldm_Smalldepemph_T1w 1.775 -84.4 417.5 0.026
Log_glcm_Id_T1w -2.936 -601.5 8.9 0.010
Lbp2D_gldm_lgdepLowGraylevemph_T1w -0.784 -147.4 400.8 0.296
Logarithm_glcm_JointEnergy_CE-T1w 0.681 -33.3 111.3 0.040
Lbp2D_glrlm_LongRunLowGraylevemph_T1w 0.955 -218.6 228.8 0.257
a This model was computed against the 0.25% PA volumetric response per logarithmic month.Abbreviations: Orig, original; Dep, dependence; Emph, emphasis; Lg, large; Lev, level.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated