Machine Learning and Glioblastoma: Treatment Response Monitoring Biomarkers in 2021

TL;DR

This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning biomarkers in monitoring glioblastoma treatment response, highlighting promising performance but emphasizing the need for larger, well-designed studies for clinical validation.

Contribution

The paper provides a comprehensive assessment of recent ML-based biomarkers for glioblastoma response monitoring, identifying current limitations and future research directions.

Findings

ML models show good diagnostic performance in distinguishing progression from mimics

Implicit features in ML models do not outperform explicit features

Limited by small sample sizes and high bias in existing studies

Abstract

The aim of the systematic review was to assess recently published studies on diagnostic test accuracy of glioblastoma treatment response monitoring biomarkers in adults, developed through machine learning (ML). Articles were searched for using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register. Included study participants were adult patients with high grade glioma who had undergone standard treatment (maximal resection, radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide) and subsequently underwent follow-up imaging to determine treatment response status. Risk of bias and applicability was assessed with QUADAS 2 methodology. Contingency tables were created for hold-out test sets and recall, specificity, precision, F1-score, balanced accuracy calculated. Fifteen studies were included with 1038 patients in training sets and 233 in test sets. To determine whether there was progression or a mimic, the reference standard combination of follow-up imaging and histopathology at re-operation was applied in 67% of studies. The small numbers of patient included in studies, the high risk of bias and concerns of applicability in the study designs (particularly in relation to the reference standard and patient selection due to confounding), and the low level of evidence, suggest that limited conclusions can be drawn from the data. There is likely good diagnostic performance of machine learning models that use MRI features to distinguish between progression and mimics. The diagnostic performance of ML using implicit features did not appear to be superior to ML using explicit features. There are a range of ML-based solutions poised to become treatment response monitoring biomarkers for glioblastoma. To achieve this, the development and validation of ML models require large, well-annotated datasets where the potential for confounding in the study design has been carefully considered.