Multicentre evaluation of the INTERPRET decision support system 2.0 for brain tumour classification

Margarida Julià-Sapé, Carles Majós, Àngels Camins, Alejandro Samitier, Miguel Baquero, Marta Serrallonga, Sira Doménech, Elisenda Grivé, Franklyn A. Howe, Kirstie Opstad, Jorge Calvar, Carles Aguilera, Carles Arús

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In a previous study, we have shown the added value of 1H MRS for the neuroradiological characterisation of adult human brain tumours. In that study, several methods of MRS analysis were used, and a software program, the International Network for Pattern Recognition of Tumours Using Magnetic Resonance Decision Support System 1.0 (INTERPRET DSS 1.0), with a short-TE classifier, provided the best results. Since then, the DSS evolved into a version 2.0 that contains an additional long-TE classifier. This study has two objectives. First, to determine whether clinicians with no experience of spectroscopy are comparable with spectroscopists in the use of the system, when only minimum training in the use of the system was given. Second, to assess whether or not a version with another TE is better than the initial version. We undertook a second study with the same cases and nine evaluators to assess whether the diagnostic accuracy of DSS 2.0 was comparable with the values obtained with DSS 1.0. In the second study, the analysis protocol was flexible in comparison with the first one to mimic a clinical environment. In the present study, on average, each case required 5.4min by neuroradiologists and 9min by spectroscopists for evaluation. Most classes and superclasses of tumours gave the same results as with DSS 1.0, except for astrocytomas of World Health Organization (WHO) grade III, in which performance measured as the area under the curve (AUC) decreased: AUC=0.87 (0.72-1.02) with DSS 1.0 and AUC=0.62 (0.55-0.70) with DSS 2.0. When analysing the performance of radiologists and spectroscopists with respect to DSS 1.0, the results were the same for most classes. Having data with two TEs instead of one did not affect the results of the evaluation. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1009-1018
JournalNMR in Biomedicine
Volume27
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2014

Keywords

  • Brain neoplasms
  • Diagnosis, computer-assisted
  • Diagnostic techniques and procedures
  • MRI
  • MRS
  • ROC curve

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Multicentre evaluation of the INTERPRET decision support system 2.0 for brain tumour classification'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this