Differentiating True Progression from Pseudoprogression in Glioblastomas: Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-MRI Habitat Analysis with Parsimonious Pharmacokinetic Model

Clicks: 4
ID: 338072
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #144 of 144 articles by views in Neuro-Oncology Advances

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 144 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Distinguishing true progression (TP) from pseudoprogression (PsP) in glioblastoma (GBM) remains a clinical challenge as both often manifest as indeterminate contrast-enhancing lesions on post-treatment MRIs. However, integrating dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI with analytical methods such as clustering and machine learning offers a promising approach for distinguishing TP from PsP. Methods Quantitative analysis of DCE-MRI data from 82 patients with TP (n = 53) and PsP (n = 29) was performed using five pharmacokinetic models. Subsequently, a parsimonious selection method was used to identify the best fit for each voxel. In next step, clustering analysis using K-means ++ was performed to classify pixels into low, medium, and high-intensity regions. Tumors were segmented into enhancing, non-enhancing, and edema regions using automated nnU-Net algorithm and clusters were extracted from these regions. Significant features derived from clustering analysis and descriptive statistics (mean, median, and skewness) of DCE-MRI parameters and tumor volume were incorporated as input variables for classifier development. Finally, five machine learning classifiers were employed to differentiate between TP and PsP. Results Univariable clustering analysis of DCE-MRI data identified Ktrans, Ve, Vp, τi and tumor volumes as significant parameters for distinguishing TP from PsP. Multivariable clustering revealed that combined high-Ktrans–high-Ve is a key distinctive variable. Among machine learning classifiers tested using these parameters, Random Forest demonstrated the best diagnostic performance, achieving an accuracy of 83% and an AUC of 0.85. Conclusion Parsimonious analysis of DCE-MRI data in conjunction with clustering and machine learning could serve as a valuable method for accurately distinguishing TP from PsP in GBMs.
Reference Key
openalex_W7224953915 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Sourav Basak, Subhanon Bera, Sankar Narayan Misra, Archith Rajan, Harish Poptani, Sanjeev Chawla, Sourav Bhaduri
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Neuro-Oncology Advances
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/noajnl/vdag254
URL
https://academic.oup.com/noa/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/noajnl/vdag254/72608739/vdag254.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.