Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39659831›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology advances

Deep learning-based postoperative glioblastoma segmentation and extent of resection evaluation: Development, external validation, and model comparison.

Santiago Cepeda, Roberto Romero, Lidia Luque, Daniel García-Pérez, Guillermo Blasco, Luigi Tommaso Luppino, Samuel Kuttner, Olga Esteban-Sinovas, Ignacio Arrese, Ole Solheim and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Santiago CepedaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-8548
Roberto RomeroCenter for Biomedical Research in Network of Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Valladolid, Spain.
Lidia LuqueDepartment of Physics and Computational Radiology, Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Daniel García-PérezDepartment of Neurosurgery, Albacete University Hospital, Albacete, Spain.
Guillermo BlascoDepartment of Neurosurgery, La Princesa University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Luigi Tommaso LuppinoDepartment of Physics and Technology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Samuel KuttnerThe PET Imaging Center, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Olga Esteban-SinovasDepartment of Neurosurgery, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.
Ignacio ArreseDepartment of Neurosurgery, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.
Ole SolheimDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5954-4817
Live EikenesDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Anna KarlbergDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Ángel Pérez-NúñezInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria, 12 de Octubre University Hospital (i + 12), Madrid, Spain.
Olivier ZanierMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience & Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Carlo SerraMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience & Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7305-550X
Victor E StaartjesMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience & Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Andrea BianconiNeurosurgery Unit, Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini," University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Luca Francesco RossiDepartment of Informatics, Polytechnic University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Diego GarbossaNeurosurgery Unit, Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini," University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Trinidad EscuderoDepartment of Radiology, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.
Roberto HorneroInstitute for Research in Mathematics (IMUVA), University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Rosario SarabiaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The pursuit of automated methods to assess the extent of resection (EOR) in glioblastomas is challenging, requiring precise measurement of residual tumor volume. Many algorithms focus on preoperative scans, making them unsuitable for postoperative studies. Our objective was to develop a deep learning-based model for postoperative segmentation using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We also compared our model's performance with other available algorithms. Methods: To develop the segmentation model, a training cohort from 3 research institutions and 3 public databases was used. Multiparametric MRI scans with ground truth labels for contrast-enhancing tumor (ET), edema, and surgical cavity, served as training data. The models were trained using MONAI and nnU-Net frameworks. Comparisons were made with currently available segmentation models using an external cohort from a research institution and a public database. Additionally, the model's ability to classify EOR was evaluated using the RANO-Resect classification system. To further validate our best-trained model, an additional independent cohort was used. Results: The study included 586 scans: 395 for model training, 52 for model comparison, and 139 scans for independent validation. The nnU-Net framework produced the best model with median Dice scores of 0.81 for contrast ET, 0.77 for edema, and 0.81 for surgical cavities. Our best-trained model classified patients into maximal and submaximal resection categories with 96% accuracy in the model comparison dataset and 84% in the independent validation cohort. Conclusions: Our nnU-Net-based model outperformed other algorithms in both segmentation and EOR classification tasks, providing a freely accessible tool with promising clinical applicability.

Indexed as

deep learningglioblastomasneural networkpostoperativesegmentation

Identifiers

PMID39659831
PMCPMC11631186

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.