European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 10, pp 4188–4197 | Cite as

Radiomic features from the peritumoral brain parenchyma on treatment-naïve multi-parametric MR imaging predict long versus short-term survival in glioblastoma multiforme: Preliminary findings

  • Prateek Prasanna
  • Jay Patel
  • Sasan Partovi
  • Anant Madabhushi
  • Pallavi Tiwari
Computer Applications



Despite 90 % of glioblastoma (GBM) recurrences occurring in the peritumoral brain zone (PBZ), its contribution in patient survival is poorly understood. The current study leverages computerized texture (i.e. radiomic) analysis to evaluate the efficacy of PBZ features from pre-operative MRI in predicting long- (>18 months) versus short-term (<7 months) survival in GBM.


Sixty-five patient examinations (29 short-term, 36 long-term) with gadolinium-contrast T1w, FLAIR and T2w sequences from the Cancer Imaging Archive were employed. An expert manually segmented each study as: enhancing lesion, PBZ and tumour necrosis. 402 radiomic features (capturing co-occurrence, grey-level dependence and directional gradients) were obtained for each region. Evaluation was performed using threefold cross-validation, such that a subset of studies was used to select the most predictive features, and the remaining subset was used to evaluate their efficacy in predicting survival.


A subset of ten radiomic ‘peritumoral’ MRI features, suggestive of intensity heterogeneity and textural patterns, was found to be predictive of survival (p = 1.47 × 10-5) as compared to features from enhancing tumour, necrotic regions and known clinical factors.


Our preliminary analysis suggests that radiomic features from the PBZ on routine pre-operative MRI may be predictive of long- versus short-term survival in GBM.

Key Points

Radiomic features from peritumoral regions can capture glioblastoma heterogeneity to predict outcome.

Peritumoral radiomics along with clinical factors are highly predictive of glioblastoma outcome.

Identifying prognostic markers can assist in making personalized therapy decisions in glioblastoma.


Glioblastoma multiforme Survival Radiomics Texture Peritumoral 



Glioblastoma multiforme




Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act




Karnofsky performance score


Long-term survival


Overall survival


Peritumoral brain zone


Random forest


Short-term survival




The Cancer Genome Atlas



The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Anant Madabhushi (Professor, Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University: email: The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers 1U24CA199374-01, R21CA179327-01; R21CA195152-01, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases under award number R01DK098503-02, the DOD Prostate Cancer Synergistic Idea Development Award (PC120857); the DOD Lung Cancer Idea Development New Investigator Award (LC130463), the DOD Prostate Cancer Idea Development Award; the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center Pilot Grant VelaSano Grant from the Cleveland Clinic, the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation Program in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Case Western Reserve University; Ohio Third Frontier Technology Validation Award; NSF-Icorps @Ohio program. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The patient cohort was obtained from The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA). TCIA is an open archive of cancer-specific medical images and associated clinical metadata established by the collaboration between the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and participating institutions in the United States. The HIPPA compliant project in TCGA was conducted in compliance with regulations and policies for the protection of human subjects, and approvals by institutional review boards were appropriately obtained. The cohort is used for retrospective prognostic study using multi-institutional data.

Supplementary material

330_2016_4637_MOESM1_ESM.doc (338 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 338 kb)


  1. 1.
    Krex D, Klink B, Hartmann C et al (2007) Long-term survival with glioblastoma multiforme. Brain 130:2596–2606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Osta WA, Chen Y, Mikhitarian K et al (2004) EpCAM is overexpressed in breast cancer and is a potential target for breast cancer gene therapy. Cancer Res 64:5818–5824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonavia R, Mukasa A, Narita Y et al (2010) Tumor heterogeneity is an active process maintained by a mutant EGFR-induced cytokine circuit in glioblastoma. Genes Dev 24:1731–1745CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lemée J-M, Clavreul A, Menei P (2015) Intratumoral heterogeneity in glioblastoma: don’t forget the peritumoral brain zone. Neuro OncolGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dehnhardt M, Zoriy MV, Khan Z et al (2008) Element distribution is altered in a zone surrounding human glioblastoma multiforme. J Trace Elem Med Biol 22:17–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Engelhorn T, Savaskan NE, Schwarz MA et al (2009) Cellular characterization of the peritumoral edema zone in malignant brain tumors. Cancer Sci 100:1856–1862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aubry M, de Tayrac M, Etcheverry A et al (2015) From the core to beyond the margin’: a genomic picture of glioblastoma intratumor heterogeneity. Oncotarget 6:12094CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lemée J-M, Clavreul A, Aubry M et al (2015) Characterizing the peritumoral brain zone in glioblastoma: a multidisciplinary analysis. J Neuro-Oncol 122:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Badie B, Schartner JM, Hagar AR et al (2003) Microglia cyclooxygenase-2 activity in experimental gliomas possible role in cerebral edema formation. Clin Cancer Res 9:872–877PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davies D (2002) Blood–brain barrier breakdown in septic encephalopathy and brain tumours*. J Anat 200:639–646CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin Z-X (2013) Glioma-related edema: new insight into molecular mechanisms and their clinical implications. Chin J Cancer 32:49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Itakura H, Achrol AS, Mitchell LA et al (2015) Magnetic resonance image features identify glioblastoma phenotypic subtypes with distinct molecular pathway activities. Sci Transl Med 7:303ra138CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang Z, Jiang H, Chen X et al (2014) Identifying the survival subtypes of glioblastoma by quantitative volumetric analysis of MRI. J Neuro-Oncol 119:207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2015) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haralick RM, Shanmugan K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-3:610–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ryu YJ, Choi SH, Park SJ, Yun TJ, Kim J-H, Sohn C-H (2014) Glioma: application of whole-tumor texture analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging for the evaluation of tumor heterogeneity. PLoS One 9:e108335CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davnall F, Yip CS, Ljungqvist G et al (2012) Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging 3:573–589CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Connor JP, Rose CJ, Waterton JC, Carano RA, Parker GJ, Jackson A (2015) Imaging intratumor heterogeneity: role in therapy response, resistance, and clinical outcome. Clin Cancer Res 21:249–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laws K (1980) Textured image segmentationGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clark K, Vendt B, Smith K et al (2013) The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J Digit Imaging 26:1045–1057CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pieper S, Halle M, Kikinis R (2004) 3D SLICER. 632–635Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Madabhushi A, Udupa JK (2006) New methods of MR image intensity standardization via generalized scale. Med Phys 33:3426–3434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tao X, Chang M-C (2010) A skull stripping method using deformable surface and tissue classification. In: SPIEMedicalImaging. International Society for Optics and Photonics, p 76233LGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hammoud MA, Sawaya R, Shi W, Thall PF, Leeds NE (1996) Prognostic significance of preoperative MRI scans in glioblastoma multiforme. J Neuro-Oncol 27:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prasanna P, Dana KJ, Gucunski N et al (2014) Automated crack detection on concrete bridgesGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jain AK, Farrokhnia F (1991) Unsupervised texture segmentation using gabor filters. Pattern Recogn 24:1167–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tiwari P, Prasanna P, Rogers L et al (2014) Texture descriptors to distinguish radiation necrosis from recurrent brain tumors on multi-parametric MRI. In: SPIEMedicalImaging. International Society for Optics and Photonics, p 90352BGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    De Jay N, Papillon-Cavanagh S, Olsen C, El-Hachem N, Bontempi G, Haibe-Kains B (2013) mRMRe: an R package for parallelized mRMR ensemble feature selection. BioinformaticsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tiwari P, Viswanath S, Kurhanewicz J, Sridhar A, Madabhushi A (2012) Multimodal wavelet embedding representation for data combination (MaWERiC): integrating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prostate cancer detection. NMR Biomed 25:607–619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shen K, Shen Z, Han Q (1997) Cox proportion hazard model multivariate analysis of prognosis of 1,484 axillary node-negative breast cancer patients. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi 19:221–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mazurowski MA, Desjardins A, Malof JM (2013) Imaging descriptors improve the predictive power of survival models for glioblastoma patients. Neuro-Oncology 15:1389–1394CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marko NF, Weil RJ, Schroeder JL, Lang FF, Suki D, Sawaya RE (2014) Extent of resection of glioblastoma revisited: personalized survival modeling facilitates more accurate survival prediction and supports a maximum-safe-resection approach to surgery. J Clin Oncol 32:774–782CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lamborn KR, Chang SM, Prados MD (2004) Prognostic factors for survival of patients with glioblastoma: recursive partitioning analysis. Neuro-Oncology 6:227–235CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gandrud C (2013) Reproducible research RRstudio. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Harrell FEJ (2001) Regression modeling Strategies applications Linearmodels, Logisticregression survival analysis. Springer VerGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee K, Mark D (1996) Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15:361–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kickingereder P, Burth S, Wick A et al (2016) Radiomic profiling of glioblastoma: identifying an imaging predictor of patient survival with improved performance over established clinical and radiologic risk models. Radiology 280:880–889CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schoenegger K, Oberndorfer S, Wuschitz B et al (2009) Peritumoral edema on MRI at initial diagnosis: an independent prognostic factor for glioblastoma? Eur J Neurol 16:874–878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Carlson MR, Pope WB, Horvath S et al (2007) Relationship between survival and edema in malignant gliomas: role of vascular endothelial growth factor and neuronal pentraxin 2. Clin Cancer Res 13:2592–2598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Carrillo J, Lai A, Nghiemphu P et al (2012) Relationship between tumor enhancement, edema, IDH1 mutational status, MGMT promoter methylation, and survival in glioblastoma. Am J Neuroradiol 33:1349–1355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lacroix M, Abi-Said D, Fourney DR et al (2001) A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: prognosis, extent of resection, and survival. J Neurosurg 95:190–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pope WB, Sayre J, Perlina A, Villablanca JP, Mischel PS, Cloughesy TF (2005) MR imaging correlates of survival in patients with high-grade gliomas. Am J Neuroradiol 26:2466–2474PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhou M, Hall L, Goldgof D et al (2014) Radiologically defined ecological dynamics and clinical outcomes in glioblastoma multiforme: preliminary results. Transl Oncol 7:5–13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kraus JA, Wenghoefer M, Schmidt MC et al (2000) Long-term survival of glioblastoma multiforme: importance of histopathological reevaluation. J Neurol 247:455–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Case Western Reserve School of MedicineUniversity Hospitals Case Medical CenterClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations