Advancing The Cancer Genome Atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features

By S. Bakas, H. Akbari, Aristeidis Sotiras, M. Bilello, Martin Rozycki, J. Kirby, J. Freymann, Keyvan Farahani, Christos Davatzikos. 2017

2,907 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Gliomas belong to a group of central nervous system tumors, and consist of various sub-regions. Gold standard labeling of these sub-regions in radiographic imaging is essential for both clinical and computational studies, including radiomic and radiogenomic analyses. Towards this end, we release segmentation labels and radiomic features for all pre-operative multimodal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (n=243) of the multi-institutional glioma collections of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), publicly available in The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA). Pre-operative scans were identified in both glioblastoma (TCGA-GBM, n=135) and low-grade-glioma (TCGA-LGG, n=108) collections via radiological assessment. The glioma sub-region labels were produced by an automated state-of-the-art method and manually revised by an expert board-certified neuroradiologist. An extensive panel of radiomic features was extracted based on the manually-revised labels. This set of labels and features should enable i) direct utilization of the TCGA/TCIA glioma collections towards repeatable, reproducible and comparative quantitative studies leading to new predictive, prognostic, and diagnostic assessments, as well as ii) performance evaluation of computer-aided segmentation methods, and comparison to our state-of-the-art method. Design Type(s) parallel group design • data integration objective Measurement Type(s) nuclear magnetic resonance assay Technology Type(s) MRI Scanner Factor Type(s) diagnosis Sample Characteristic(s) Homo sapiens • glioma cell Design Type(s) parallel group design • data integration objective Measurement Type(s) nuclear magnetic resonance assay Technology Type(s) MRI Scanner Factor Type(s) diagnosis Sample Characteristic(s) Homo sapiens • glioma cell Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data (ISA-Tab format)

Subfields: Genetics, Oncology, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Genetics

In Oncology

In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

Citations in the corpus

Deep learning based brain tumor segmentation: a survey (2020, methodology): “dataset alone with the MICCAI Multimodal Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge [116], [117], [118].”
Data Augmentation in Classification and Segmentation: A Survey and New Strategies (2023, background): “Cirillo et al. [97] examined how augmentation techniques, such as ﬂipping, rotation, scaling, brightness adjustment and elastic deformation, affected the learning process when training a standard 3D U-Net [98] on the BraTS dataset [85,103,104].”
The Medical Segmentation Decathlon (2021, methodology): “The data was acquired from 19 different institutions and contained a subset of the data used in the 2016 and 2017 Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenges [12, 13, 14].”
Diffusion models in medical imaging: A comprehensive survey (2022, methodology): “Results on BRATS2020 [80, 81, 82] and CheXpert [132] datasets demonstrate the superiority of the proposed approach compared to both VAE [133] and GAN [134] models.”
Confidence Calibration and Predictive Uncertainty Estimation for Deep Medical Image Segmentation (2019, methodology): “The images in CBICA set were acquired at the Center for Biomedical Image Computing and Analytics (CBICA) at the University of Pennsylvania [37].”
Optimization for Medical Image Segmentation: Theory and Practice When Evaluating With Dice Score or Jaccard Index (2020, methodology): “The empirical validation is performed on the following six binary medical segmentation tasks: • BR18 - whole tumour segmentation on pre-operative MRI (BRATS 2018 [25], [26], [27], [3]) -”
Medical Image Segmentation Review: The Success of U-Net (2022, methodology): “This hybrid network captures the local and global information from 3D data and demonstrates the improved performance within two Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) 2019-2020 [91], [135], [136] datasets over the previous CNN U-Net structures.”
Solving Inverse Problems in Medical Imaging with Score-Based Generative Models (2021, methodology): “The Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) 2021 dataset (Menze et al., 2014; Bakas et al., 2017) collected for the image segmentation challenge contains 2000 cases (8000 MRI scans), where each case has four different MR contrasts: native (T1), post-contrast T1-weighted (T1Gd), T2-weighted (T2), and T2…”
The RSNA-ASNR-MICCAI BraTS 2021 Benchmark on Brain Tumor Segmentation and Radiogenomic Classification (2021, background): “…by board-certiﬁed neuroradiologists, who assessed the complete TCIA collections (TCGA-GBM, n=262 and TCGA-LGG, n=199) and categorized each scan as pre-or post-operative, and only the scans without any prior instrumentation were included as a part of the BraTS challenge this year onwards [12,14,15].”
DRINet for Medical Image Segmentation (2018, background): “1) Overview: Brain tumors are routinely diagnosed using multi-modal MRI, including native T1-weighted (T1), post-contrast T1-weighted (T1-Gd), T2-weighted (T2), and T2 ﬂuid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) image sequences [41].”
3D MRI brain tumor segmentation using autoencoder regularization (2018, methodology): “rt methods for the segmentation of brain tumors by providing a 3D MRI dataset with ground truth tumor segmentation labels annotated arXiv:1810.11654v3 [cs.CV] 19 Nov 2018 2 A. Myronenko by physicians [5,18,4,2,3]. This year, BraTS 2018 training dataset included 285 cases (210 HGG and 75 LGG), each w”