Preoperative and postoperative prediction of long-term meningioma outcomes

Background Meningiomas are stratified according to tumor grade and extent of resection, often in isolation of other clinical variables. Here, we use machine learning (ML) to integrate demographic, clinical, radiographic and pathologic data to develop predictive models for meningioma outcomes. Methods and findings We developed a comprehensive database containing information from 235 patients who underwent surgery for 257 meningiomas at a single institution from 1990 to 2015. The median follow-up was 4.3 years, and resection specimens were re-evaluated according to current diagnostic criteria, revealing 128 WHO grade I, 104 grade II and 25 grade III meningiomas. A series of ML algorithms were trained and tuned by nested resampling to create models based on preoperative features, conventional postoperative features, or both. We compared different algorithms’ accuracy as well as the unique insights they offered into the data. Machine learning models restricted to preoperative information, such as patient demographics and radiographic features, had similar accuracy for predicting local failure (AUC = 0.74) or overall survival (AUC = 0.68) as models based on meningioma grade and extent of resection (AUC = 0.73 and AUC = 0.72, respectively). Integrated models incorporating all available demographic, clinical, radiographic and pathologic data provided the most accurate estimates (AUC = 0.78 and AUC = 0.74, respectively). From these models, we developed decision trees and nomograms to estimate the risks of local failure or overall survival for meningioma patients. Conclusions Clinical information has been historically underutilized in the prediction of meningioma outcomes. Predictive models trained on preoperative clinical data perform comparably to conventional models trained on meningioma grade and extent of resection. Combination of all available information can help stratify meningioma patients more accurately.

[1]  M. McDermott,et al.  Presenting Symptoms and Prognostic Factors for Symptomatic Outcomes Following Resection of Meningioma. , 2017, World neurosurgery.

[2]  Raymond Y Huang,et al.  Radiographic prediction of meningioma grade by semantic and radiomic features , 2017, PloS one.

[3]  Hongyang Zhao,et al.  The Potential Value of Preoperative MRI Texture and Shape Analysis in Grading Meningiomas: A Preliminary Investigation , 2017, Translational oncology.

[4]  Martin Sill,et al.  DNA methylation-based classification and grading system for meningioma: a multicentre, retrospective analysis. , 2017, The Lancet. Oncology.

[5]  Randal S. Olson,et al.  PMLB: a large benchmark suite for machine learning evaluation and comparison , 2017, BioData Mining.

[6]  R. Beroukhim,et al.  Genomic landscape of high-grade meningiomas , 2017, Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base.

[7]  L. Ungar,et al.  MediBoost: a Patient Stratification Tool for Interpretable Decision Making in the Era of Precision Medicine , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[8]  Nan Xiao,et al.  hdnom: Building Nomograms for Penalized Cox Models with High-Dimensional Survival Data , 2016, bioRxiv.

[9]  A. S. Gaytan,et al.  New Software for Preoperative Diagnostics of Meningeal Tumor Histologic Types. , 2016, World neurosurgery.

[10]  G. Reifenberger,et al.  The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary , 2016, Acta Neuropathologica.

[11]  C. Gamble,et al.  The ROAM/EORTC-1308 trial: Radiation versus Observation following surgical resection of Atypical Meningioma: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial , 2015, Trials.

[12]  D. Brachman,et al.  Intermediate-risk meningioma: initial outcomes from NRG Oncology RTOG 0539. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery.

[13]  Jason H. Moore,et al.  ExSTraCS 2.0: description and evaluation of a scalable learning classifier system , 2015, Evolutionary Intelligence.

[14]  Patricia Svolos,et al.  Classification methods for the differentiation of atypical meningiomas using diffusion and perfusion techniques at 3-T MRI. , 2013, Clinical imaging.

[15]  J. Barnholtz-Sloan,et al.  CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2007-2011. , 2012, Neuro-oncology.

[16]  R. Beroukhim,et al.  Medical therapies for meningiomas , 2010, Journal of Neuro-Oncology.

[17]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent. , 2010, Journal of statistical software.

[18]  B. Scheithauer,et al.  The 2007 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System , 2007, Acta Neuropathologica.

[19]  Lawrence Carin,et al.  Sparse multinomial logistic regression: fast algorithms and generalization bounds , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[20]  J. Friedman Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. , 2001 .

[21]  David H. Wolpert,et al.  The Lack of A Priori Distinctions Between Learning Algorithms , 1996, Neural Computation.

[22]  Martin Krzywinski,et al.  Points of Significance: Classification and regression trees , 2017, Nature Methods.

[23]  Jill S. Barnholtz-Sloan,et al.  CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2008-2012 , 2015, Neuro-oncology.

[24]  P. Wen,et al.  Meningiomas: knowledge base, treatment outcomes, and uncertainties. A RANO review , 2014 .

[25]  D. Louis WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system , 2007 .

[26]  Vladimir Vapnik,et al.  Support-vector networks , 2004, Machine Learning.

[27]  L. Breiman Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.