TY - JOUR
T1 - Automated brain tumor identification using magnetic resonance imaging
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Kouli, Omar
AU - Hassane, Ahmed
AU - Badran, Dania
AU - Kouli, Tasnim
AU - Hossain-Ibrahim, Kismet
AU - Steele, J. Douglas
N1 - Funding Information:
This report was funded through support from the SINAPSE innovation fund.
Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Background: Automated brain tumor identification facilitates diagnosis and treatment planning. We evaluate the performance of traditional machine learning (TML) and deep learning (DL) in brain tumor detection and segmentation, using MRI. Methods: A systematic literature search from January 2000 to May 8, 2021 was conducted. Study quality was assessed using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Detection meta-analysis was performed using a unified hierarchical model. Segmentation studies were evaluated using a random effects model. Sensitivity analysis was performed for externally validated studies. Results: Of 224 studies included in the systematic review, 46 segmentation and 38 detection studies were eligible for meta-analysis. In detection, DL achieved a lower false positive rate compared to TML; 0.018 (95% CI, 0.011 to 0.028) and 0.048 (0.032 to 0.072) (P <. 001), respectively. In segmentation, DL had a higher dice similarity coefficient (DSC), particularly for tumor core (TC); 0.80 (0.77 to 0.83) and 0.63 (0.56 to 0.71) (P <. 001), persisting on sensitivity analysis. Both manual and automated whole tumor (WT) segmentation had "good"(DSC ≥ 0.70) performance. Manual TC segmentation was superior to automated; 0.78 (0.69 to 0.86) and 0.64 (0.53 to 0.74) (P =. 014), respectively. Only 30% of studies reported external validation. Conclusions: The comparable performance of automated to manual WT segmentation supports its integration into clinical practice. However, manual outperformance for sub-compartmental segmentation highlights the need for further development of automated methods in this area. Compared to TML, DL provided superior performance for detection and sub-compartmental segmentation. Improvements in the quality and design of studies, including external validation, are required for the interpretability and generalizability of automated models.
AB - Background: Automated brain tumor identification facilitates diagnosis and treatment planning. We evaluate the performance of traditional machine learning (TML) and deep learning (DL) in brain tumor detection and segmentation, using MRI. Methods: A systematic literature search from January 2000 to May 8, 2021 was conducted. Study quality was assessed using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Detection meta-analysis was performed using a unified hierarchical model. Segmentation studies were evaluated using a random effects model. Sensitivity analysis was performed for externally validated studies. Results: Of 224 studies included in the systematic review, 46 segmentation and 38 detection studies were eligible for meta-analysis. In detection, DL achieved a lower false positive rate compared to TML; 0.018 (95% CI, 0.011 to 0.028) and 0.048 (0.032 to 0.072) (P <. 001), respectively. In segmentation, DL had a higher dice similarity coefficient (DSC), particularly for tumor core (TC); 0.80 (0.77 to 0.83) and 0.63 (0.56 to 0.71) (P <. 001), persisting on sensitivity analysis. Both manual and automated whole tumor (WT) segmentation had "good"(DSC ≥ 0.70) performance. Manual TC segmentation was superior to automated; 0.78 (0.69 to 0.86) and 0.64 (0.53 to 0.74) (P =. 014), respectively. Only 30% of studies reported external validation. Conclusions: The comparable performance of automated to manual WT segmentation supports its integration into clinical practice. However, manual outperformance for sub-compartmental segmentation highlights the need for further development of automated methods in this area. Compared to TML, DL provided superior performance for detection and sub-compartmental segmentation. Improvements in the quality and design of studies, including external validation, are required for the interpretability and generalizability of automated models.
KW - Brain tumour
KW - Artificial intelligence
KW - Machine learning
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Segmentation
KW - meta-analysis
KW - brain tumor
KW - segmentation
KW - machine learning
KW - artificial intelligence
U2 - 10.1093/noajnl/vdac081
DO - 10.1093/noajnl/vdac081
M3 - Article
C2 - 35769411
SN - 2632-2498
VL - 4
JO - Neuro-oncology advances
JF - Neuro-oncology advances
IS - 1
M1 - vdac081
ER -