Outcome prediction of intracranial aneurysm treatment by flow diverters using machine learning.

OBJECTIVEFlow diverters (FDs) are designed to occlude intracranial aneurysms (IAs) while preserving flow to essential arteries. Incomplete occlusion exposes patients to risks of thromboembolic complications and rupture. A priori assessment of FD treatment outcome could enable treatment optimization leading to better outcomes. To that end, the authors applied image-based computational analysis to clinically FD-treated aneurysms to extract information regarding morphology, pre- and post-treatment hemodynamics, and FD-device characteristics and then used these parameters to train machine learning algorithms to predict 6-month clinical outcomes after FD treatment.METHODSData were retrospectively collected for 84 FD-treated sidewall aneurysms in 80 patients. Based on 6-month angiographic outcomes, IAs were classified as occluded (n = 63) or residual (incomplete occlusion, n = 21). For each case, the authors modeled FD deployment using a fast virtual stenting algorithm and hemodynamics using image-based computational fluid dynamics. Sixteen morphological, hemodynamic, and FD-based parameters were calculated for each aneurysm. Aneurysms were randomly assigned to a training or testing cohort in approximately a 3:1 ratio. The Student t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test were performed on data from the training cohort to identify significant parameters distinguishing the occluded from residual groups. Predictive models were trained using 4 types of supervised machine learning algorithms: logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM; linear and Gaussian kernels), K-nearest neighbor, and neural network (NN). In the testing cohort, the authors compared outcome prediction by each model trained using all parameters versus only the significant parameters.RESULTSThe training cohort (n = 64) consisted of 48 occluded and 16 residual aneurysms and the testing cohort (n = 20) consisted of 15 occluded and 5 residual aneurysms. Significance tests yielded 2 morphological (ostium ratio and neck ratio) and 3 hemodynamic (pre-treatment inflow rate, post-treatment inflow rate, and post-treatment aneurysm averaged velocity) discriminants between the occluded (good-outcome) and the residual (bad-outcome) group. In both training and testing, all the models trained using all 16 parameters performed better than all the models trained using only the 5 significant parameters. Among the all-parameter models, NN (AUC = 0.967) performed the best during training, followed by LR and linear SVM (AUC = 0.941 and 0.914, respectively). During testing, NN and Gaussian-SVM models had the highest accuracy (90%) in predicting occlusion outcome.CONCLUSIONSNN and Gaussian-SVM models incorporating all 16 morphological, hemodynamic, and FD-related parameters predicted 6-month occlusion outcome of FD treatment with 90% accuracy. More robust models using the computational workflow and machine learning could be trained on larger patient databases toward clinical use in patient-specific treatment planning and optimization.

[1]  Philipp Berg,et al.  Endothelialization of over- and undersized flow-diverter stents at covered vessel side branches: An in vivo and in silico study. , 2016, Journal of biomechanics.

[2]  Pablo Laguna,et al.  Distinct ECG Phenotypes Identified in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Using Machine Learning Associate With Arrhythmic Risk Markers , 2018, Front. Physiol..

[3]  K. Lovblad,et al.  Computational fluid dynamics analysis of flow reduction induced by flow-diverting stents in intracranial aneurysms: a patient-unspecific hemodynamics change perspective , 2016, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

[4]  Ronald M. Summers,et al.  Machine learning and radiology , 2012, Medical Image Anal..

[5]  G. Duckwiler,et al.  Endovascular occlusion of intracranial aneurysms with electrically detachable coils: correlation of aneurysm neck size and treatment results. , 1994, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[6]  J. Raymond,et al.  The Success of Flow Diversion in Large and Giant Sidewall Aneurysms May Depend on the Size of the Defect in the Parent Artery , 2014, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[7]  A. Siddiqui,et al.  Ostium Ratio and Neck Ratio Could Predict the Outcome of Sidewall Intracranial Aneurysms Treated with Flow Diverters , 2019, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[8]  C. Putman,et al.  Flow–area relationship in internal carotid and vertebral arteries , 2008, Physiological measurement.

[9]  Adnan H Siddiqui,et al.  Panacea or problem: flow diverters in the treatment of symptomatic large or giant fusiform vertebrobasilar aneurysms. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery.

[10]  Z Kulcsar,et al.  Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms by Functional Reconstruction of the Parent Artery: The Budapest Experience with the Pipeline Embolization Device , 2010, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[11]  D. Kallmes,et al.  Safety and efficacy of the Pipeline embolization device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a pooled analysis of 3 large studies. , 2017, Journal of neurosurgery.

[12]  D. Kallmes,et al.  Cellular mechanisms of aneurysm occlusion after treatment with a flow diverter. , 2013, Radiology.

[13]  David A. Steinman,et al.  An image-based modeling framework for patient-specific computational hemodynamics , 2008, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[14]  J. Mocco,et al.  MORPHOLOGY PARAMETERS FOR INTRACRANIAL ANEURYSM RUPTURE RISK ASSESSMENT , 2008, Neurosurgery.

[15]  Z. Obermeyer,et al.  Predicting the Future - Big Data, Machine Learning, and Clinical Medicine. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Carlos Miranda,et al.  CURATIVE ENDOVASCULAR RECONSTRUCTION OF CEREBRAL ANEURYSMS WITH THE PIPELINE EMBOLIZATION DEVICE: THE BUENOS AIRES EXPERIENCE , 2009, Neurosurgery.

[17]  C. Strother,et al.  3D Deep Learning Angiography (3D-DLA) from C-arm Conebeam CT , 2018, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[18]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[19]  S. Renowden,et al.  Intra-Aneurysmal Thrombosis as a Possible Cause of Delayed Aneurysm Rupture after Flow-Diversion Treatment , 2010, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[20]  D. Kallmes,et al.  Hemodynamic analysis of fast and slow aneurysm occlusions by flow diversion in rabbits , 2014, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

[21]  A. Siddiqui,et al.  Compacting a Single Flow Diverter versus Overlapping Flow Diverters for Intracranial Aneurysms: A Computational Study , 2017, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[22]  J. Mocco,et al.  Hemodynamic–Morphologic Discriminants for Intracranial Aneurysm Rupture , 2011, Stroke.

[23]  Taylor M. Duguay,et al.  Coronary CT Angiography-derived Fractional Flow Reserve: Machine Learning Algorithm versus Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling. , 2018, Radiology.

[24]  Jinhui Xu,et al.  Virtual stenting workflow with vessel-specific initialization and adaptive expansion for neurovascular stents and flow diverters , 2016, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[25]  Pat Langley,et al.  Selection of Relevant Features and Examples in Machine Learning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[26]  Nikhil Paliwal,et al.  Fast Virtual Stenting With Vessel-Specific Initialization and Collision Detection , 2014 .

[27]  Thomas Redel,et al.  Tetrahedral vs. polyhedral mesh size evaluation on flow velocity and wall shear stress for cerebral hemodynamic simulation , 2011, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[28]  Chander Sadasivan,et al.  Endoluminal scaffolds for vascular reconstruction and exclusion of aneurysms from the cerebral circulation. , 2010, Stroke.

[29]  Luca Antiga,et al.  AView: An Image-based Clinical Computational Tool for Intracranial Aneurysm Flow Visualization and Clinical Management , 2015, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[30]  Jianping Xiang,et al.  High-fidelity virtual stenting: modeling of flow diverter deployment for hemodynamic characterization of complex intracranial aneurysms. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery.

[31]  Adnan H Siddiqui,et al.  Aneurysm characteristics, coil packing, and post-coiling hemodynamics affect long-term treatment outcome , 2019, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

[32]  Joeky T Senders,et al.  REVIEWARTICLE-NEUROSURGICALTECHNIQUES An introduction and overview of machine learning in neurosurgical care , 2017 .

[33]  Jason M. Davies,et al.  Association between hemodynamic modifications and clinical outcome of intracranial aneurysms treated using flow diverters , 2017, Medical Imaging.

[34]  David F. Kallmes,et al.  Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms With Flow Diverters: A Meta-Analysis , 2013, Stroke.

[35]  Peter C Austin,et al.  Using methods from the data-mining and machine-learning literature for disease classification and prediction: a case study examining classification of heart failure subtypes. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[36]  Pablo Lamata,et al.  Recurrent Fully Convolutional Neural Networks for Multi-slice MRI Cardiac Segmentation , 2016, RAMBO+HVSMR@MICCAI.

[37]  Patrick C. Staples,et al.  Machine Learning and Neurosurgical Outcome Prediction: A Systematic Review. , 2018, World neurosurgery.

[38]  L. Rangel-Castilla,et al.  Update on flow diverters for the endovascular management of cerebral aneurysms. , 2017, Neurosurgical focus.

[39]  Adnan H Siddiqui,et al.  Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: results from a multicenter clinical trial. , 2013, Radiology.

[40]  F. Mut,et al.  Association between hemodynamic conditions and occlusion times after flow diversion in cerebral aneurysms , 2014, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.