Application of Artificial Intelligence Methods for Imaging of Spinal Metastasis.

1. Introduction

Spinal metastasis is a malignant process along the spine that is up to 35 times more common than any other primary malignant disease along the spine [ 1 ] and represents the third most common location for metastases [ 2 ]. Spinal metastasis can tremendously impact quality of life, secondary to complications such as pain due to fractures, spinal cord compression, neurological deficits [ 3 , 4 ], reduced mobility, bone marrow aplasia and hypercalcemia leading to symptoms such as constipation, polyuria, polydipsia, fatigue and even cardiac arrythmias and acute renal failure [ 5 , 6 ]. Therefore, the timely detection, diagnosis and optimal treatment of spinal metastases is essential to reduce complications and to improve patients’ quality of life [ 7 ].

Radiological investigations play a central role in the diagnosis and treatment planning of spinal metastases. Plain radiographs are a quick and inexpensive first-line investigation, although advanced modalities such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET) and bone scintigraphy are all superior for the detection and classification of spinal metastases [ 8 ]. Different imaging modalities have their own advantages over each other in the assessment of spinal metastasis. CT with sensitivity and specificity of 79.2% and 92.3%, respectively, for the detection of spinal metastases [ 9 ], can be used to guide interventional procedures and also provides systemic staging [ 10 ]. Compared to CT, MRI has higher sensitivity and specificity of 94.1% and 94.2%, respectively, for spinal metastasis detection [ 9 ], and is radiation-free. MRI is the modality of choice for assessing metastatic spread to the bone marrow and associated epidural soft tissue extension [ 11 , 12 ]. 18F FDG-PET (flurodeoxyglucose) has sensitivity and specificity of 89.8% and 63.3%, respectively, although sensitivity varies among different histologies due to their innate metabolic activity [ 9 , 13 ]. In bone scintigraphy, the sensitivity and specificity are 80.0% and 92.8%, respectively, and it is the most widely available technique for the study of bone metastatic disease [ 8 , 9 ].

Recently, preliminary Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques have demonstrated remarkable progress in medical imaging applications, especially in the field of oncology [ 14 ]. The two most popular machine learning techniques are radiomics-based feature analysis, along with convolutional neural networks (CNN). Radiomics-based techniques require extraction of several handcrafted features, which are then selected to provide a training set for deep learning-based image classification [ 15 ]. One drawback of the technique is that the selected handcrafted features remain limited to the knowledge of the radiologist or clinician, which could reduce the accuracy of the developed algorithm [ 16 ]. Machine learning along with deep learning techniques can directly learn important imaging features for classification without the need for handcrafted feature selection. This typically involves convolutional neural networks, and these techniques have been shown in the literature to have improved prediction accuracy for lesion detection, segmentation and treatment response in oncological imaging [ 17 , 18 , 19 ].

The use of AI techniques in various oncological imaging [ 20 ] for primary malignancies, including breast [ 21 , 22 , 23 ], renal [ 24 , 25 ], brain [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ] and liver cancers [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ] have been studied, with the majority showing exceptional prediction outcome, although few have been validated in a real clinical setting. Recently, there has been research into computer aided interpretation, radiomics and machine learning to optimise the treatment decisions for spinal metastasis using multimodal imaging [ 34 ]. This review article aims to provide an overview of the most clinically pertinent applications of machine learning (including radiomics and CNNs) in spinal oncology imaging.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

A systematic, detailed literature search of the main electronic medical databases was undertaken in concordance with the PRISMA guidelines [ 35 , 36 ]. Electronic databases searched included the Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov , MEDLINE, and PubMed (last date of the literature search was the 31 May 2022). Databases were searched for the following terms: (“spinal” OR “vertebral”) AND (“metastasis” OR “metastases”) AND (“radiomics”, OR “machine learning”, OR “deep learning”, OR “artificial intelligence”).

2.2. Study Screening and Selection Criteria

No limitations were stipulated for the literature search. The main inclusion criteria were research studies utilising radiomics techniques or deep learning to analyse spinal metastases. Other inclusion criteria included the following: (a) imaging analysis involving nuclear medicine studies, CT and/or MRI scans; (b) studies addressing the capacity to predict, diagnose and integrate the deep learning into clinical practice; (c) studies involving humans only; and (d) publications in the English language. Articles excluded from further analysis included case reports, conference abstracts, review articles, and editorial correspondence (e.g., letters, commentaries and opinion pieces). Duplicate publications, articles more than 20 years old and publications focusing on non-imaging radiomics techniques (e.g., isolated histopathology features) were also excluded from analysis. The literature search was finalised by reviewing the selected publication bibliographies to identify any relevant articles.

2.3. Data Extraction and Reporting

All selected articles were retrieved and tabulated into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation, Washington, DC, USA). Details gathered from each of the selected articles were as follows: Article details: Authorship, Date of online or journal publication; Potential clinical utility: Tumour classification or segmentation, treatment or prognosis prediction; Patient population: Patients with suspected or known spinal metastases, with benign vertebral lesions which have undergone imaging evaluation; Study details: Study type, sample size (number of patients, data sets), type of imaging (CT, MR, bone scan or PET-CT), treatment information and outcome measures.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search Results

The preliminary search through the main electronic medical databases ( Figure 1 ) identified 76 relevant articles, which were screened using the aforementioned criteria. This screening culminated in the initial exclusion of 41 publications, and the residual 35 publications underwent further full-text analysis to determine inclusion. Upon detailed analysis of the text, a further 11 articles were removed as they were focused on cancer sites outside the spine, or had no application using imaging data including focused molecular and/or genomic studies. An additional six articles were included after manually reviewing the bibliography of the selected articles. Overall, this culminated in a total of 30 publications ( Table 1 ) for in-depth analysis. Key findings of the current AI applications were compiled and summarised in this review.

Our search found 15/30 (50.0%) studies were MRI-based, 10/30 (33.3%) were CT-based, 3/30 (10.0%) were related to nuclear studies (PET-CT/SPECT), 1/30 (3.3%) were DEXA-based and 1/30 (3.3%) used MRI and CT evaluation. In terms of the techniques used, 8/30 (26.7%) studies used radiomics to differentiate spinal metastases from other pathological conditions, 12/30 (40.0%) studies focused on machine learning to detect spinal metastases and 2/30 (6.7%) studies used radiomics to predict pain response and risk of compression fractures from treated spinal metastases. In addition, 9/30 (30.0%) studies used radiomics to generate clinically useful parameters, of which 3/30 (10.0%) used machine learning to assist in vertebral metastasis segmentation and treatment planning, 4/30 studies (13.3%) used radiomics to determine the spinal tumour characteristics and likely primary malignancy and 2/30 (6.7%) studies focused on using deep learning to classify the complications of spinal metastases.

3.2. Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a term referring to a machine’s computational ability to perform tasks that are comparable to those executed by humans. This is done by utilising unique inputs and then generating outputs with high added value [ 37 ]. With recent advances in medical imaging and ever increasing large amounts of digital image and report data, worldwide interest in AI for medical imaging continues to increase [ 38 ]. The rationale of using AI and computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) systems was initially thought to assist clinicians or radiologists in the detection of tumours or lesions which in turn increases efficiency, improves detection and reduces error rates [ 39 ]. As a result, efforts are ongoing to enhance the diagnostic ability of AI, and enhance its efficiency so that is can be successfully translated into clinical practice [ 40 ]. With the advent of artificial neural networks, which are a class of architectures loosely based on how the human brain works [ 41 ], several computational learning models (mainly machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms) have been introduced and are largely responsible for the growth of AI in radiology. In general, the clinical applications of AI ( Figure 2 ) can be broadly characterised into three categories for oncology imaging workflow: (1) detection of abnormalities; (2) characterisation of abnormalities, which includes image processing steps such as segmentation, differentiation and classification; and (3) integrated diagnostics, which include decision support for treatment decision and planning, treatment response and prognosis prediction.

3.3. Machine Learning (ML)

Machine learning is a field of AI in which models are trained for prediction using known datasets, from which the machine “learns”. The developed model then applies its knowledge to perform diagnostic tasks in unknown datasets [ 42 ]. The application of ML requires collection of data inputs that have been labelled by human experts (typically radiologists) or by direct extraction of the data using several different computational methods including supervised and unsupervised learning. Supervised machine learning models rely on labelled input data to learn the relationship with output training data [ 43 ], and are often used to classify data or make predictions. On the other hand, unsupervised machine learning models learn from unlabelled raw training data to learn the relationships and patterns within the dataset and discover inherent trends within the data set [ 44 , 45 ]. Unsupervised models are mainly used as an efficient representation of the initial dataset (e.g., densities, distances or clustering through dataset statistical properties) and to better understand relationships or patterns within the datasets [ 46 , 47 ]. Such new representation can be an initial step prior to training a supervised model (e.g., identifying anomalies and outliers within the datasets), which could improve performance in the supervised model [ 48 , 49 , 50 ].

3.4. Deep Learning (DL)

Deep learning represents a subdivision of machine learning ( Figure 3 ), and is modelled on the neuronal architecture within the brain. The technique leverages artificial neural networks, which involve several layers to solve complex medical imaging challenges [ 51 ]. The multiple layered structure enables the deep learning model or algorithm to actively learn knowledge from the imaging datasets and make predictions on unseen imaging data [ 52 ]. These deep learning techniques can provide accurate image classification (disease present/absent, or severity of disease), segmentation (pixel-based), and detection capability [ 53 ]

Deep learning allows for the ability to process and detect fundamental diagnostic patterns and features beyond that of human abilities. This has created a new field of deep learning termed Radiomics, in which imaging features related to important pathological and histological subtyping of tumours can be identified and used for the detection, differentiation and prognosis of unknown lesions [ 54 ].

3.5. Radiomics

Radiomics is a relatively new branch of machine learning that involves converting medical images containing important information related to tumour features into measurable and quantifiable data [ 55 ]. This information can then aid clinicians in the assessment of tumours by providing additional data about tumour behaviour and pathophysiology beyond that of current subjective visual interpretation (inferable by human eyes) [ 56 , 57 ], such as tumour subtyping and grading [ 58 ]. Combined with clinical and qualitative imaging data, radiomics has been shown to guide and improve medical decision making [ 59 ], and can be used to aid disease prediction, provide prognostic information, along with treatment response assessment [ 58 ]. In general, the workflow for deriving a radiomics model can be divided into several steps ( Figure 4 ): data selection (input), radiological imaging evaluation and segmentation, image feature extraction in the regions of interest (ROIs) and exploratory analysis followed by modelling [ 55 ]. Depending on the type of imaging modality, the acquisition, technical specifications, software, segmentation of the ROIs, image feature extraction and structure of the predictive algorithm are all different and subject to several factors [ 60 ]. Machine learning methods including random decision forest, an ensemble learning method for classifying data using decision trees, can then be performed to validate and further evaluate the classification accuracy of the set of predictors [ 61 ]. These can then be applied in a clinical setting to potentially improve the diagnostic accuracy and prediction of survival post-treatment [ 62 , 63 ].

There are two key radiomics techniques, namely handcrafted-feature based and deep learning-based analysis [ 64 ]. Firstly, handcrafted-feature radiomics involves extraction of features from an area of interest (typically segmented). These features can be placed into groups based on shape [ 65 ], histogram criteria (first order statistics) [ 66 ], textural-based criteria (second-order statistics) [ 39 ] and other higher order statistical criteria [ 67 ]. Following this step, machine learning models can be developed to provide clinical predictions, including survival/prognostic information based on the handcrafted-features [ 62 , 68 , 69 ]. The models are also assessed on validation datasets to review their efficiency and sensitivity.

In contrast to handcrafted-feature radiomics, deep learning techniques rely on convolutional neural networks (CNN) or other architectures [ 70 ] to identify the most pertinent radiological imaging features without relying on prior feature descriptions. CNNs provide automated extraction of the most important features from the radiological imaging data using a cascading process, which can then be used for pattern recognition and training [ 71 ]. The generated dominant imaging features can undergo further processing, or exit the neural network and be used for machine learning model generation using algorithms similar to the feature-based radiomics method before validation. The main drawback of deep learning-based radiomics is the requirement for much larger training datasets, since feature extraction is required as part of the initial process compared to feature-based radiomics where the features are manually selected for analysis [ 72 ]. With recent advances in AI, this limitation can be circumvented through transfer learning, which is a technique that uses neural networks that were pre-trained for another separate but closely related purpose [ 73 ]. As such, by leveraging on the network’s prior knowledge, transfer learning reduces computational demand and the amount of training data required, but can still produce reliable performance.

Radiomics techniques have transformed the outlook of quantitative medical imaging research. Radiomics could provide rapid, comprehensive characterisation of tumours at minimal cost, which would act as an initial screen to determine the need for further clinical or genomic testing [ 74 ].

4. Discussion

Clinical Applications of AI in Spinal Metastases.

4.1. Detection of Spinal Metastases

Early detection and diagnosis of spinal metastases plays a key role in clinical practice. This will determine the stage of disease for the patient, and has the potential to alter the treatment regimen [ 105 ]. Metastatic spinal disease is associated with increased morbidity, and more than half of these patients will require radiotherapy or invasive intervention for complications, such as spinal cord or nerve root compression [ 106 ]. Hence, early diagnosis and treatment before permanent neurologic and functional deficits occur is essential for a favourable prognosis [ 107 , 108 , 109 ].

Manual detection of spinal metastasis through various imaging modalities is time consuming, tedious and often challenging with imaging features overlapping with many other pathologies. It is widely recognised that automated lesion detection could improve radiologist sensitivity for detecting osseous metastases, with computer-aided detection (CAD) software systems and artificial intelligence models proving to be as effective or even superior to manual radiologist detection [ 91 , 92 , 93 ]. Computer-assisted detection of spinal metastases was first studied on CT by O’Connor et al. [ 93 ] in 2007 for the detection of osteolytic spinal metastases. This paved the way for further studies using CAD, focusing on other subtypes of spinal metastasis such as osteoblastic or mixed type lesions [ 90 ], and other imaging modalities. Subsequently, with the recent advances in artificial intelligence in medical imaging [ 110 , 111 , 112 ], there were substantial improvements in the detection of spinal metastases with the aid of deep learning and convolutional neural networks. This has resulted in improvement in the accuracy of computer-assisted automated detection of spinal metastases across various imaging modalities with significant reduction in false positive and negative rates [ 75 , 85 , 88 , 89 ].

Wang J et al. [ 75 ] proposed an MRI-based detection of spinal metastases using a Siamese neural network model. This involved a multi-resolution technique to detect spinal metastasis with aggregation of neighbouring slices in MRI sequences to reduce false positive rates. Their methods were able to detect all spinal metastatic lesions from their datasets, with a relatively low false positive rate of 0.40 per case. Fan XJ et al. [ 85 ] developed a DC-U-Net model using energy/spectral CT imaging to improve detection of spinal metastases in patients with lung cancer. Their work utilised the fact that characteristic X-ray absorption by substances differs under various energy levels, which provides better detection, segmentation and differentiation of bone lesions. Their deep learning model showed performance close to that of an experienced physician, with detection rates of 66.03/81.41% by the deep learning model compared to 64.74%/77.56% by the professional doctor using high and low energy CT levels (140 kVp and 40 keV), respectively.

In another study Roth et al. [ 89 ] designed a two tier coarse-to-fine cascade framework incorporating existing computer-aided detection of sclerotic vertebral metastases on CT images with deep CNN classifications. Their proposed model with the help of CNN classifiers acts as an additional selective process to exclude difficult false positive results while preserving high sensitivities, reducing the false positives per volume (FP/vol.) from 4 to 1.2, 7 to 3, and from 12 to 9.5 when comparing sensitivity results of 60%, 70% and 80%, respectively, in their test set, with an AUC of 0.83.

AI has already shown its potential in other clinical fields for detection of pathology. For example, in breast cancer screening AI-assisted simulation software was developed by Raya-Povedano et al. [ 113 ] and showed workload reduction (in the form of manhours) of up to 70% for the triage of suspicious mammographic examinations compared to manual reading by radiologists, with non-inferior sensitivity of 84.1% and 16.7% lower recall rates. Although the application of AI in spinal metastasis detection is still in a preliminary stage, future clinical deployment would be important to reduce radiologists’ clinical workload, and reduce error rates with the AI algorithms acting as a second reader or safety net.

4.2. Differentiating Spinal Metastases from Other Pathological Conditions

Machine learning has been applied in several studies to help distinguish between spinal metastases and other pathology. This was first done by identifying key radiomics features in vertebral metastases [ 77 ], and incorporating this information with various machine learning models. For example, Liu et al. [ 80 ] and Xiong X et al. [ 76 ] utilised MRI-based radiomics to differentiate between spinal metastases and multiple myeloma, based on conventional T1-weighted (T1W) and fat-suppression T2-weighted (T2W) MR sequences. They incorporated the radiomics models using various machine learning algorithms such as Support-Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), K-Nearest Neighbour (KNN), Naïve Bayes (NB) using 10-fold cross validation, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and Logistic Regression Classifier to predict the likelihood of spinal metastases. The radiomics model from Xiong X et al. used features from T2WI images, and achieved accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 81.5%, 87.9% and 79.0%, respectively, in their validation cohort. As for Liu et al., their model with 10-EPV (events per independent variable) showed good performance in distinguishing multiple myeloma from spinal metastases with an AUC of 0.85.

4.3. Pre-Treatment Evaluation

4.3.1. Predicting Prognosis

Prediction of prognosis is a paradigm in oncological treatment. In patients with vertebral metastases, the ability to predict treatment response may help clinicians provide the most appropriate treatment with the best clinical outcome for the patient, avoid delayed transition to another treatment and prevent exposing patients to unnecessary treatment-related side effects. Shi YJ et al. [ 101 ] studied the value of MRI-based radiomics in predicting the treatment response of chemotherapy in a small group of breast cancer patients with vertebral metastases. Their radiomics model was effective in predicting progressive vs non-progressive disease with an area under the curve (AUC) of up to 0.91. This method could be extrapolated in future studies to predict the treatment response of spinal metastases and other primary tumours.

In addition to predicting treatment response, radiomics can also predict the effectiveness of treatment for symptom relief in patients with spinal metastasis. Back and neuropathic pain from spinal metastases are very common symptoms with many patients experiencing debilitating pain [ 114 ]. Radiotherapy can provide pain relief for spinal metastasis in certain situations. However, even palliative radiotherapy for vertebral metastases using relatively low doses of radiation, still has potential for adverse side-effects. Considering these risks, it will be helpful to identify those who have a high likelihood of pain relief from radiotherapy and direct other patients to alternate therapies. Wakabayashi K et al. [ 98 ] developed a radiomics model utilising feature subsets, random forests and recursive feature exclusion to predict pain response post-radiotherapy for vertebral metastases. Their study concluded that the model incorporating both clinical and radiomics features was the most effective in predicting response to pain following radiotherapy with an AUC of 0.85 and accuracy of 82.6%, and this was significantly improved ( p = 0.044) when compared to the model only including clinical features with an AUC of 0.70 and accuracy of 65.2%.

4.3.2. Identifying High Risk Vertebral Metastases Requiring Early Intervention

Applications of deep learning models goes beyond tumour detection and differentiation, and they have the ability to automatically generate meaningful parameters from MRI and other modalities. Hallinan et al. [ 94 ] developed a deep learning model for automated classification of metastatic epidural disease and/or spinal cord compression on MRI using the Bilsky classification. The model showed almost perfect agreement when compared to specialist readers on internal and external datasets with kappas of 0.92–0.98, p < 0.001 and 0.94–0.95, p < 0.001, respectively, for dichotomous Bilsky classification (low versus high grade). Accurate, reproducible classification of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression will enable clinicians to decide on initial radiotherapy versus surgical intervention [ 115 ].

Radiomic modelling and machine learning incorporating clinical features and radiomic features from pre-treatment imaging is also effective in predicting vertebral compression fractures 1 year following radiotherapy [ 99 ]. In a study performed by Gui et al., their radiomic machine learning model selected features from CT and MR images together with clinical features to predict vertebral compression fractures in patients with spinal metastases following stereotactic body radiation therapy. The combined radiomics/clinical model showed good performance with sensitivity of 84.4%, specificity of 80.0% and AUC of 0.88, exceeding the performance of clinical features alone (AUCs of 0.58 to 0.80). These studies show that meaningful parameters generated by machine learning models using radiomics and clinical information have the potential to triage urgent findings in spinal metastases, and identify those that require early intervention. Future work includes developing models that augment radiologist interpretation of spinal metastases, including automated disease stratification based on clinically useful classifications such as the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) [ 116 ]. SINS is useful to identify patients who require prompt surgical review and intervention.

4.3.3. Pre-Treatment Planning and Monitoring

Segmentation refers to delineation or volume extraction of a lesion or organ based on image analysis. In clinical practice, manual or semi-manual segmentation techniques are being applied to provide further value to CT and MRI studies. However, these techniques are subjective, operator-dependent and very time-consuming which limits their adoption. Automatic segmentation of spinal metastases using deep learning models has been shown to be as accurate as expert annotations in both MRI and CT [ 88 ]. Hille G et. al. [ 96 ] showed that automated vertebral metastasis segmentation on MRI using deep convolutional neural networks (U-net like architecture) were almost as accurate as expert annotation. Their automated segmentation solution achieved a Dice–Sørensen coefficient (DSC) of up to 0.78 and mean sensitivity rates up to 78.9% on par with inter-reader variability DSC of 0.79. Potentially, these models will not only reduce the need for time-consuming manual segmentation of spinal metastases, but also support stereotactic body radiotherapy planning, and improve the performance [ 117 , 118 ] and treatment outcome of minimally invasive interventions for spinal metastasis such as radiofrequency ablation [ 95 ]. In respect to radiotherapy, precise automated tumour contours will improve treatment planning, reduce segmentation times and reduce the radiation dose to the surrounding organs at risk, including the spinal cord. In recent years, various image segmentation techniques have been proposed, resulting in more accurate and efficient image segmentation for clinical diagnosis and treatment [ 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 ].

The efficiency of AI algorithms to perform repetitive tasks, such as segmentation have already been shown to outperform manual approaches in various clinical studies. A study by Winkel D. et al. [ 123 , 124 ] showed that their fully automated liver segmentation algorithm using deep learning was able to achieve a mean processing time of 9.94 s, at least 20 times faster than manual segmentation with excellent agreement between the two approaches (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.996). In a polycystic liver and kidney disease series of CT images, an artificial intelligence model segmented the liver parenchyma at 8333 slices/hour, compared to labour intensive manual segmentation by an expert clinician, which did not surpass 16 slices/hour, with a DSC of 0.96 [ 125 ]. While the current AI models and applications on spinal metastasis segmentation are still in a preliminary stage, their use could help reduce clinical workload and improve productivity when the technology is translated into clinical care.

Artificial intelligence applications could also help to improve measurement of tumour burden for assessment of treatment response and monitoring of tumour progression. This can be achieved by obtaining lesion and/or tumour volumetry through AI-assisted segmentation. For example, Goehler et al. [ 126 ] developed a deep learning approach to estimate overall tumour burden for neuroendocrine neoplasia on MR images, achieving concordance with manual clinician assessment in 91% with sensitivity of 85.0%, specificity of 92.0% and DSC of up to 0.81. Estimating tumour burden and volume of disease in spinal metastases is difficult due to the shape of the vertebrae and presence of multiple vertebral levels. Tumour burden of spinal metastases has been shown to predict prognosis [ 106 , 127 , 128 , 129 ] and treatment efficiency [ 130 ]. With the help of AI, volumetric evaluation of spinal metastases and disease burden can be more efficient, clinically feasible and could aid clinical management.

4.4. Radiogenomics and Phenotyping

Radiogenomics, the combination of “ Radiomics ” and “ Genomics ”, refers to the use of imaging features or surrogates to determine genomic signatures and advanced biomarkers in tumours. These biomarkers can then be used for clinical management decisions, including prognostic, diagnostic and predictive precision of tumour subtypes [ 131 ]. The workflow of a radiogenomics study can be commonly classified into five different stages ( Figure 5 ): (1) image acquisition and pre-processing, (2) feature extraction and selection from both the medical imaging and genotype, (3) association of radiomics and genomics features, (4) data analysis using machine learning models and (5) final radiogenomics outcome model [ 132 ].

In the case of spinal metastasis, several radiogenomics models in patients with primary lung malignancy [ 102 , 103 , 104 ] have the ability to predict the presence or absence of the EGFR mutation through the analysis of MR images of the spine. For instance, the multiparametric MRI-based radiomics model developed by Ren M et al. [ 102 ] combining both radiomics and clinical features achieved AUC of up to 0.89, sensitivity of 83.9% and specificity of 79.3% in differentiating the EGFR mutation versus EGFR wild-type patients in their training cohort, whereas the radiomics nomogram developed by Cao R et al. [ 104 ] was able to obtain good prediction performance of EGFR mutation in thoracic spinal metastases from MRI-based images with an AUC of up to 0.90. These non-invasive, quantitative and convenient methods to predict the EGFR mutation in spinal metastases may help guide individualised treatment in lung adenocarcinoma.

To date, there are no other published studies on radiomics models for identifying other clinically important genotypes in spinal oncology imaging, such as KRAS, BRAF and ALK [ 133 ], which have been shown to have diagnostic and prognostic significance. However, there are many studies in the literature for other organs, including breast oncology [ 134 ] imaging (e.g., miRNAs expression, gene expression and Ki67 proliferation index), and for brain imaging ( Supplementary Figure S1 ), including biomarkers such as isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) [ 135 ], chromosome arms 1p/19q-codeletion [ 136 , 137 , 138 ] and methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase status (MGMT) [ 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 ] as prognostic markers for glioma [ 143 , 144 , 145 ]. Future work will include the study of these other clinically important genotypes to aid in deciding treatment for patients with spinal metastases or other primary tumours, supporting the new era of precision medicine [ 146 , 147 ].

Spinal metastasis from an unknown primary is a common clinical dilemma seen in up to 30% of patients upon initial presentation of spinal metastatic lesions [ 148 , 149 , 150 ]. While conventional MRI can provide accurate detection of metastases in the vertebrae, cancers from different primary tumours can appear similar and may be difficult to distinguish [ 151 , 152 ]. These patients often require further PET/CT imaging for diagnosis of the primary cancer and whole-body staging before treatment can take place. In rare circumstances even with further imaging the primary cancer cannot be identified, and invasive biopsy is required to ascertain the likely primary tumour site and treatment options. Lang N et al. [ 97 ] developed radiomics and DL models to differentiate spinal metastases originating from lung and other cancers using dynamic contrast enhanced sequences (DCE) from a spinal MRI database. Their deep learning models demonstrated that the DCE kinetic measurement of the washout slope from a hotspot of the spinal metastatic lesion was the most accurate parameter to aid diagnosis of primary lung cancer from other tumours. Their deep learning convolutional long short-term memory network using the whole database of DCE images had accuracy of up to 81.0%. Being able to predict the primary malignancy in a patient with spinal metastases may help guide clinicians on the most relevant investigations, thereby reducing unnecessary evaluations, medical costs and minimising the need for invasive spinal biopsy.

4.5. Post-Treatment Evaluation

4.5.1. Residual/Recurrent Tumour versus Post-Treatment Changes

A common and challenging clinical scenario is differentiating spinal metastases from post-treatment changes. As the clinical treatment between these two entities are vastly different, accurate diagnosis is important to prevent unnecessary invasive biopsy and/or chemoradiotherapy. An example is osteoradionecrosis in the cervical spine, which is a complication following radiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma [ 153 ]. Several studies have shown that osteoradionecrosis can mimic vertebral metastases as both can present with soft tissue masses and abnormal enhancement on MRI [ 154 , 155 ]. Machine learning radiomics has been shown to be useful as a non-invasive visual diagnostic tool to differentiate between the two entities. Zhong et al. [ 78 ] created an MRI-based radiomics nomogram that was shown to be clinically useful in discriminating between cervical spine osteoradionecrosis and metastases, with an AUC of 0.73 on the training set and 0.72 in the validation set.

Vertebral compression fractures following radiotherapy of spinal metastases occur in up to 9.4–12% [ 156 , 157 ] of cases, and are the most common and serious side effect of stereotactic body radiotherapy. It is often difficult to assess whether a compression fracture is related to tumour progression or radiation induced fibrosis or necrosis [ 158 , 159 ]. To date, there are no published radiomics studies differentiating vertebral compression fractures as a result of radiotherapy versus those related to tumour progression. However, Yoda et al. [ 84 ] developed a CNN model for differentiating osteoporotic from metastatic vertebral compression fractures and showed high accuracy using MRI-based T1WI features, achieving AUC of 0.98, 96.4% accuracy, 98.1% sensitivity and 94.9% specificity, which was statistically equal or superior to that of spine surgeons. A similar approach may be applied for differentiating vertebral compression fractures following radiotherapy from those related to tumour progression, and this could leverage transfer learning given the similar topics [ 73 ].

4.5.2. Pseudo-Progression

Pseudo-progression is a post-treatment phenomenon involving an increase in the target tumour volume (usually without any worsening symptoms), which then demonstrates interval stability or reduction in volume on repeat imaging. It occurs in approximately 14 to 18% of those with vertebral metastases treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy [ 160 , 161 ]. The differentiation of pseudo-progression from true progression is challenging on imaging even with many studies suggesting some differentiating factors [ 161 , 162 ], such as location of involvement, e.g., purely vertebral body involvement with pseudo compared to involvement of the epidural space with true progression. Artificial intelligence has already shown utility in aiding the differentiation of pseudo from true progression in brain imaging. Kim et al. [ 163 ] and Jang et al. [ 164 ] demonstrated good performance of their radiomics models in differentiating true progression of glioblastoma following surgical resection and radio-chemotherapy versus pseudo-progression post-treatment. These studies demonstrate the potential of AI in differentiating these two entities in spinal imaging, and future work may contribute to earlier suspicion of true progression allowing for close imaging follow-up, and earlier diagnosis [ 165 ].

5. Conclusions

Artificial intelligence, including machine learning technologies, has achieved good performance in spine oncology. These techniques have immense potential to aid clinicians in the management of spinal metastases including treatment selection, enhancement of workflow efficiency and reduction in complications and adverse events. However, the majority of the studies are preliminary, retrospective or based at a single-centre with small sample sizes. As a result, the models developed in these studies are subjected to limited generalisability with significant heterogeneity in results when applied to external datasets. This can result in reduced reproducibility of the results and may impede the development of AI models that can be translated successfully into clinical use. Further research, especially randomised controlled trials or large multi-centre studies, is required to validate these applications and facilitate their integration into routine clinical practice.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers14164025/s1 , Figure S1: Diagram showing an example of radiogenomics framework for glioblastoma (brain tumour), how imaging biomarkers are derived and used to predict genomics such as IDH-mutation [ 135 ], 1p/19q co-deletion [ 136 , 137 , 138 ] and MGMT-methylation status [ 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 ].

Click here for additional data file.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, methodology, supervision and writing, W.O., L.Z., W.Z., T.K., D.S.W.L., X.Z.L., Y.L.T., E.C.T., B.C.O., S.T.Q., A.M. and J.T.P.D.H.; investigation and project administration, W.O., L.Z., W.Z., E.C.T., J.H.T., N.K., B.A.V., B.C.O., S.T.Q., A.M. and J.T.P.D.H.; resources and software, W.O., L.Z., W.Z., E.C.T., B.C.O. and J.T.P.D.H.; formal analysis and validation, W.O., L.Z., W.Z., T.K., D.S.W.L., X.Z.L., Y.L.T., E.C.T., J.H.T., N.K., B.A.V., B.C.O., S.T.Q., A.M. and J.T.P.D.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Mundy G.R. Metastasis to bone: Causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities Nat. Rev. Cancer 2002 2 584 593 10.1038/nrc867 12154351

2. Witham T.F. Khavkin Y.A. Gallia G.L. Wolinsky J.P. Gokaslan Z.L. Surgery insight: Current management of epidural spinal cord compression from metastatic spine disease Nat. Clin. Pract. Neurol. 2006 2 87 94 quiz 116 10.1038/ncpneuro0116 16932530

3. Klimo P. Jr. Schmidt M.H. Surgical management of spinal metastases Oncologist 2004 9 188 196 10.1634/theoncologist.9-2-188 15047923

4. Coleman R.E. Metastatic bone disease: Clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies Cancer Treat Rev. 2001 27 165 176 10.1053/ctrv.2000.0210 11417967

5. Cuccurullo V. Cascini G.L. Tamburrini O. Rotondo A. Mansi L. Bone metastases radiopharmaceuticals: An overview Curr. Radiopharm. 2013 6 41 47 10.2174/1874471011306010007 23470032

6. Cecchini M.G. Wetterwald A. Pluijm G.v.d. Thalmann G.N. Molecular and Biological Mechanisms of Bone Metastasis EAU Update Ser. 2005 3 214 226 10.1016/j.euus.2005.09.006

7. Yu H.H. Tsai Y.Y. Hoffe S.E. Overview of diagnosis and management of metastatic disease to bone Cancer Control 2012 19 84 91 10.1177/107327481201900202 22487970

8. O’Sullivan G.J. Carty F.L. Cronin C.G. Imaging of bone metastasis: An update World J. Radiol. 2015 7 202 211 10.4329/wjr.v7.i8.202 26339464 PMC4553252

9. Liu T. Wang S. Liu H. Meng B. Zhou F. He F. Shi X. Yang H. Detection of vertebral metastases: A meta-analysis comparing MRI, CT, PET, BS and BS with SPECT J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2017 143 457 465 10.1007/s00432-016-2288-z 27752772 PMC11819241

10. Wallace A.N. Greenwood T.J. Jennings J.W. Use of Imaging in the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease With Percutaneous Ablation and Vertebral Augmentation AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2015 205 434 441 10.2214/AJR.14.14199 26204297

11. Moynagh M.R. Colleran G.C. Tavernaraki K. Eustace S.J. Kavanagh E.C. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: Assessment of skeletal metastases Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 2010 14 22 36 10.1055/s-0030-1248703 20229438

12. Schiff D. O’Neill B.P. Wang C.H. O’Fallon J.R. Neuroimaging and treatment implications of patients with multiple epidural spinal metastases Cancer 1998 83 1593 1601 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19981015)83:8<1593::AID-CNCR14>3.0.CO;2-H 9781953

13. Talbot J.N. Paycha F. Balogova S. Diagnosis of bone metastasis: Recent comparative studies of imaging modalities Q. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2011 55 374 410 21738113

14. Tran K.A. Kondrashova O. Bradley A. Williams E.D. Pearson J.V. Waddell N. Deep learning in cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment selection Genome Med. 2021 13 152 10.1186/s13073-021-00968-x 34579788 PMC8477474

15. Liu Z. Wang S. Dong D. Wei J. Fang C. Zhou X. Sun K. Li L. Li B. Wang M. The Applications of Radiomics in Precision Diagnosis and Treatment of Oncology: Opportunities and Challenges Theranostics 2019 9 1303 1322 10.7150/thno.30309 30867832 PMC6401507

16. Parekh V.S. Jacobs M.A. Deep learning and radiomics in precision medicine Expert Rev. Precis Med. Drug Dev. 2019 4 59 72 10.1080/23808993.2019.1585805 31080889 PMC6508888

17. Esteva A. Kuprel B. Novoa R.A. Ko J. Swetter S.M. Blau H.M. Thrun S. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks Nature 2017 542 115 118 10.1038/nature21056 28117445 PMC8382232

18. Kermany D.S. Goldbaum M. Cai W. Valentim C.C.S. Liang H. Baxter S.L. McKeown A. Yang G. Wu X. Yan F. Identifying Medical Diagnoses and Treatable Diseases by Image-Based Deep Learning Cell 2018 172 1122 1131 e1129 10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.010 29474911

19. De Fauw J. Ledsam J.R. Romera-Paredes B. Nikolov S. Tomasev N. Blackwell S. Askham H. Glorot X. O’Donoghue B. Visentin D. Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease Nat. Med. 2018 24 1342 1350 10.1038/s41591-018-0107-6 30104768

20. Kumar Y. Gupta S. Singla R. Hu Y.C. A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Cancer Prediction and Diagnosis Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2022 29 2043 2070 10.1007/s11831-021-09648-w 34602811 PMC8475374

21. Bidard F.C. Proudhon C. Pierga J.Y. Circulating tumor cells in breast cancer Mol. Oncol. 2016 10 418 430 10.1016/j.molonc.2016.01.001 26809472 PMC5528978

22. Nallamala S.H. Mishra P. Koneru S.V. Breast Cancer Detection using Machine Learning Way Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019 8 1402 1405

23. Patil R.S. Biradar N. Automated mammogram breast cancer detection using the optimized combination of convolutional and recurrent neural network Evol. Intell. 2021 14 1459 1474 10.1007/s12065-020-00403-x

24. Tabibu S. Vinod P.K. Jawahar C.V. Pan-Renal Cell Carcinoma classification and survival prediction from histopathology images using deep learning Sci. Rep. 2019 9 10509 10.1038/s41598-019-46718-3 31324828 PMC6642160

25. Kowalewski K.-F. Egen L. Fischetti C.E. Puliatti S. Juan G.R. Taratkin M. Ines R.B. Sidoti Abate M.A. Mühlbauer J. Wessels F. Artificial intelligence for renal cancer: From imaging to histology and beyond Asian J. Urol. 2022 9 243 252 10.1016/j.ajur.2022.05.003 PMC9399557 36035341

26. Zhu G. Jiang B. Tong L. Xie Y. Zaharchuk G. Wintermark M. Applications of Deep Learning to Neuro-Imaging Techniques Front. Neurol 2019 10 869 10.3389/fneur.2019.00869 31474928 PMC6702308

27. Zegers C.M.L. Posch J. Traverso A. Eekers D. Postma A.A. Backes W. Dekker A. van Elmpt W. Current applications of deep-learning in neuro-oncological MRI Phys. Med. 2021 83 161 173 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.03.003 33780701

28. Díaz-Pernas F.J. Martínez-Zarzuela M. Antón-Rodríguez M. González-Ortega D. A Deep Learning Approach for Brain Tumor Classification and Segmentation Using a Multiscale Convolutional Neural Network Healthcare 2021 9 153 10.3390/healthcare9020153 33540873 PMC7912940

29. Sadad T. Rehman A. Munir A. Saba T. Tariq U. Ayesha N. Abbasi R. Brain tumor detection and multi-classification using advanced deep learning techniques Microsc. Res. Tech. 2021 84 1296 1308 10.1002/jemt.23688 33400339

30. Nishida N. Kudo M. Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging and Its Application in Sonography for the Management of Liver Tumor Front. Oncol. 2020 10 594580 10.3389/fonc.2020.594580 33409151 PMC7779763

31. Hill C.E. Biasiolli L. Robson M.D. Grau V. Pavlides M. Emerging artificial intelligence applications in liver magnetic resonance imaging World J. Gastroenterol. 2021 27 6825 6843 10.3748/wjg.v27.i40.6825 34790009 PMC8567471

32. Nam D. Chapiro J. Paradis V. Seraphin T.P. Kather J.N. Artificial intelligence in liver diseases: Improving diagnostics, prognostics and response prediction JHEP Rep. 2022 4 100443 10.1016/j.jhepr.2022.100443 35243281 PMC8867112

33. Taha A. Ochs V. Kayhan L.N. Enodien B. Frey D.M. Krähenbühl L. Taha-Mehlitz S. Advancements of Artificial Intelligence in Liver-Associated Diseases and Surgery Medicina 2022 58 459 10.3390/medicina58040459 35454298 PMC9029673

34. Merali Z.A. Colak E. Wilson J.R. Applications of Machine Learning to Imaging of Spinal Disorders: Current Status and Future Directions Glob. Spine J. 2021 11 23S 29S 10.1177/2192568220961353 33890805 PMC8076811

35. Page M.J. McKenzie J.E. Bossuyt P.M. Boutron I. Hoffmann T.C. Mulrow C.D. Shamseer L. Tetzlaff J.M. Akl E.A. Brennan S.E. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews Bmj 2021 372 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057 PMC8005924

36. Liberati A. Altman D.G. Tetzlaff J. Mulrow C. Gøtzsche P.C. Ioannidis J.P. Clarke M. Devereaux P.J. Kleijnen J. Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration Bmj 2009 339 b2700 10.1136/bmj.b2700 19622552 PMC2714672

37. Rajkomar A. Dean J. Kohane I. Machine Learning in Medicine N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 380 1347 1358 10.1056/NEJMra1814259 30943338

38. Thrall J.H. Li X. Li Q. Cruz C. Do S. Dreyer K. Brink J. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Radiology: Opportunities, Challenges, Pitfalls, and Criteria for Success J. Am. Coll Radiol. 2018 15 504 508 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.12.026 29402533

39. Hosny A. Parmar C. Quackenbush J. Schwartz L.H. Aerts H. Artificial intelligence in radiology Nat. Rev. Cancer 2018 18 500 510 10.1038/s41568-018-0016-5 29777175 PMC6268174

40. Nagoev Z.V. Sundukov Z.A. Pshenokova I.A. Denisenko V.A. Architecture of CAD for distributed artificial intelligence based on self-organizing neuro-cognitive architectures News Kabard.–Balkar Sci. Cent. RAS 2020 2 40 47 10.35330/1991-6639-2020-2-94-40-47

41. Kriegeskorte N. Deep Neural Networks: A New Framework for Modeling Biological Vision and Brain Information Processing Annu. Rev. Vis. Sci. 2015 1 417 446 10.1146/annurev-vision-082114-035447 28532370

42. Erickson B.J. Korfiatis P. Akkus Z. Kline T.L. Machine Learning for Medical Imaging Radiographics 2017 37 505 515 10.1148/rg.2017160130 28212054 PMC5375621

43. Zhu X. Goldberg A.B. Introduction to Semi-Supervised Learning Synth. Lect. Artif. Intell. Mach. Learn. 2009 3 1 130 10.2200/S00196ED1V01Y200906AIM006

44. Sidey-Gibbons J.A.M. Sidey-Gibbons C.J. Machine learning in medicine: A practical introduction BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2019 19 64 10.1186/s12874-019-0681-4 30890124 PMC6425557

45. Cao B. Araujo A. Sim J. Unifying Deep Local and Global Features for Image Search Proceedings of the Computer Vision–ECCV 2020 Glasgow, UK 23–28 August 2020 726 743

46. Bengio Y. Learning Deep Architectures for AI Found. Trends Mach. Learn. 2009 2 1 127 10.1561/2200000006

47. Montagnon E. Cerny M. Cadrin-Chênevert A. Hamilton V. Derennes T. Ilinca A. Vandenbroucke-Menu F. Turcotte S. Kadoury S. Tang A. Deep learning workflow in radiology: A primer Insights Imaging 2020 11 22 10.1186/s13244-019-0832-5 32040647 PMC7010882

48. Li H. Galperin-Aizenberg M. Pryma D. Simone C.B. 2nd Fan Y. Unsupervised machine learning of radiomic features for predicting treatment response and overall survival of early stage non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy Radiother. Oncol. 2018 129 218 226 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.06.025 30473058 PMC6261331

49. Alaverdyan Z. Jung J. Bouet R. Lartizien C. Regularized siamese neural network for unsupervised outlier detection on brain multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: Application to epilepsy lesion screening Med. Image Anal. 2020 60 101618 10.1016/j.media.2019.101618 31841950

50. Tlusty T. Amit G. Ben-Ari R. Unsupervised clustering of mammograms for outlier detection and breast density estimation Proceedings of the 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) Beijing, China 20–24 August 2018 3808 3813

51. Zaharchuk G. Gong E. Wintermark M. Rubin D. Langlotz C.P. Deep Learning in Neuroradiology AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2018 39 1776 1784 10.3174/ajnr.A5543 29419402 PMC7410723

52. Kaka H. Zhang E. Khan N. Artificial intelligence and deep learning in neuroradiology: Exploring the new frontier Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 2021 72 35 44 10.1177/0846537120954293 32946272

53. Cheng P.M. Montagnon E. Yamashita R. Pan I. Cadrin-Chênevert A. Romero F.P. Chartrand G. Kadoury S. Tang A. Deep Learning: An Update for Radiologists RadioGraphics 2021 41 1427 1445 10.1148/rg.2021200210 34469211

54. Ziyad S.R. Radha V. Vayyapuri T. Overview of Computer Aided Detection and Computer Aided Diagnosis Systems for Lung Nodule Detection in Computed Tomography Curr. Med. Imaging Rev. 2020 16 16 26 10.2174/1573405615666190206153321 31989890

55. van Timmeren J.E. Cester D. Tanadini-Lang S. Alkadhi H. Baessler B. Radiomics in medical imaging—“how-to” guide and critical reflection Insights Imaging 2020 11 91 10.1186/s13244-020-00887-2 32785796 PMC7423816

56. Faiella E. Santucci D. Calabrese A. Russo F. Vadala G. Zobel B.B. Soda P. Iannello G. de Felice C. Denaro V. Artificial Intelligence in Bone Metastases: An MRI and CT Imaging Review Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 19 1880 10.3390/ijerph19031880 35162902 PMC8834956

57. Mannil M. von Spiczak J. Manka R. Alkadhi H. Texture Analysis and Machine Learning for Detecting Myocardial Infarction in Noncontrast Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Unveiling the Invisible Investig. Radiol. 2018 53 338 343 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000448 29420321

58. Aerts H.J. The Potential of Radiomic-Based Phenotyping in Precision Medicine: A Review JAMA Oncol. 2016 2 1636 1642 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.2631 27541161

59. Lambin P. Rios-Velazquez E. Leijenaar R. Carvalho S. van Stiphout R.G. Granton P. Zegers C.M. Gillies R. Boellard R. Dekker A. Radiomics: Extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis Eur. J. Cancer 2012 48 441 446 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.036 22257792 PMC4533986

60. Valladares A. Beyer T. Rausch I. Physical imaging phantoms for simulation of tumor heterogeneity in PET, CT, and MRI: An overview of existing designs Med. Phys. 2020 47 2023 2037 10.1002/mp.14045 31981214 PMC7216968

61. Breiman L. Random Forests Mach. Learn. 2001 45 5 32 10.1023/A:1010933404324

62. Zhang Y. Oikonomou A. Wong A. Haider M.A. Khalvati F. Radiomics-based Prognosis Analysis for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Sci. Rep. 2017 7 46349 10.1038/srep46349 28418006 PMC5394465

63. Jia T.-Y. Xiong J.-F. Li X.-Y. Yu W. Xu Z.-Y. Cai X.-W. Ma J.-C. Ren Y.-C. Larsson R. Zhang J. Identifying EGFR mutations in lung adenocarcinoma by noninvasive imaging using radiomics features and random forest modeling Eur. Radiol. 2019 29 4742 4750 10.1007/s00330-019-06024-y 30778717

64. Rogers W. Thulasi Seetha S. Refaee T.A.G. Lieverse R.I.Y. Granzier R.W.Y. Ibrahim A. Keek S.A. Sanduleanu S. Primakov S.P. Beuque M.P.L. Radiomics: From qualitative to quantitative imaging Br. J. Radiol. 2020 93 20190948 10.1259/bjr.20190948 32101448 PMC7362913

65. Rizzo S. Botta F. Raimondi S. Origgi D. Fanciullo C. Morganti A.G. Bellomi M. Radiomics: The facts and the challenges of image analysis Eur. Radiol. Exp. 2018 2 36 10.1186/s41747-018-0068-z 30426318 PMC6234198

66. Lambin P. Leijenaar R.T.H. Deist T.M. Peerlings J. de Jong E.E.C. van Timmeren J. Sanduleanu S. Larue R. Even A.J.G. Jochems A. Radiomics: The bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2017 14 749 762 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141 28975929

67. Zhou M. Scott J. Chaudhury B. Hall L. Goldgof D. Yeom K.W. Iv M. Ou Y. Kalpathy-Cramer J. Napel S. Radiomics in Brain Tumor: Image Assessment, Quantitative Feature Descriptors, and Machine-Learning Approaches AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2018 39 208 216 10.3174/ajnr.A5391 28982791 PMC5812810

68. Chen C. Zheng A. Ou X. Wang J. Ma X. Comparison of Radiomics-Based Machine-Learning Classifiers in Diagnosis of Glioblastoma From Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma Front. Oncol. 2020 10 1151 10.3389/fonc.2020.01151 33042784 PMC7522159

69. Cha Y.J. Jang W.I. Kim M.S. Yoo H.J. Paik E.K. Jeong H.K. Youn S.M. Prediction of Response to Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases Using Convolutional Neural Networks Anticancer Res. 2018 38 5437 5445 10.21873/anticanres.12875 30194200

70. Guo Y. Liu Y. Oerlemans A. Lao S. Wu S. Lew M.S. Deep learning for visual understanding: A review Neurocomputing 2016 187 27 48 10.1016/j.neucom.2015.09.116

71. Ciresan D.C. Meier U. Masci J. Gambardella L.M. Schmidhuber J. Flexible, high performance convolutional neural networks for image classification Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Barcelona, Spain 16–22 July 2011

72. Papadimitroulas P. Brocki L. Christopher Chung N. Marchadour W. Vermet F. Gaubert L. Eleftheriadis V. Plachouris D. Visvikis D. Kagadis G.C. Artificial intelligence: Deep learning in oncological radiomics and challenges of interpretability and data harmonization Phys. Med. 2021 83 108 121 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.03.009 33765601

73. Ueda D. Shimazaki A. Miki Y. Technical and clinical overview of deep learning in radiology Jpn. J. Radiol. 2019 37 15 33 10.1007/s11604-018-0795-3 30506448

74. Haider S.P. Burtness B. Yarbrough W.G. Payabvash S. Applications of radiomics in precision diagnosis, prognostication and treatment planning of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas Cancers Head Neck 2020 5 6 10.1186/s41199-020-00053-7 32391171 PMC7197186

75. Wang J. Fang Z. Lang N. Yuan H. Su M.Y. Baldi P. A multi-resolution approach for spinal metastasis detection using deep Siamese neural networks Comput. Biol. Med. 2017 84 137 146 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.03.024 28364643 PMC6042511

76. Xiong X. Wang J. Hu S. Dai Y. Zhang Y. Hu C. Differentiating Between Multiple Myeloma and Metastasis Subtypes of Lumbar Vertebra Lesions Using Machine Learning-Based Radiomics Front. Oncol. 2021 11 601699 10.3389/fonc.2021.601699 33718148 PMC7943866

77. Filograna L. Lenkowicz J. Cellini F. Dinapoli N. Manfrida S. Magarelli N. Leone A. Colosimo C. Valentini V. Identification of the most significant magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomic features in oncological patients with vertebral bone marrow metastatic disease: A feasibility study Radiol. Med. 2019 124 50 57 10.1007/s11547-018-0935-y 30191445

78. Zhong X. Li L. Jiang H. Yin J. Lu B. Han W. Li J. Zhang J. Cervical spine osteoradionecrosis or bone metastasis after radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma? The MRI-based radiomics for characterization BMC Med. Imaging 2020 20 104 10.1186/s12880-020-00502-2 32873238 PMC7466527

79. Chianca V. Cuocolo R. Gitto S. Albano D. Merli I. Badalyan J. Cortese M.C. Messina C. Luzzati A. Parafioriti A. Radiomic Machine Learning Classifiers in Spine Bone Tumors: A Multi-Software, Multi-Scanner Study Eur. J. Radiol. 2021 137 109586 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109586 33610852

80. Liu J. Guo W. Zeng P. Geng Y. Liu Y. Ouyang H. Lang N. Yuan H. Vertebral MRI-based radiomics model to differentiate multiple myeloma from metastases: Influence of features number on logistic regression model performance Eur. Radiol. 2022 32 572 581 10.1007/s00330-021-08150-y 34255157

81. Fan X. Zhang H. Yin Y. Zhang J. Yang M. Qin S. Zhang X. Yu F. Texture Analysis of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for Differential Diagnosis Spinal Metastases Front. Med. (Lausanne) 2020 7 605746 10.3389/fmed.2020.605746 33521018 PMC7843930

82. Naseri H. Skamene S. Tolba M. Faye M.D. Ramia P. Khriguian J. Patrick H. Andrade Hernandez A.X. David M. Kildea J. Radiomics-based machine learning models to distinguish between metastatic and healthy bone using lesion-center-based geometric regions of interest Sci. Rep. 2022 12 9866 10.1038/s41598-022-13379-8 35701461 PMC9198102

83. Jin Z. Zhang F. Wang Y. Tian A. Zhang J. Chen M. Yu J. Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography Image-Based Radiomics for Discriminating Vertebral Bone Metastases From Benign Bone Lesions in Patients With Tumors Front. Med. (Lausanne) 2021 8 792581 10.3389/fmed.2021.792581 35059418 PMC8764284

84. Yoda T. Maki S. Furuya T. Yokota H. Matsumoto K. Takaoka H. Miyamoto T. Okimatsu S. Shiga Y. Inage K. Automated Differentiation Between Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture and Malignant Vertebral Fracture on MRI Using a Deep Convolutional Neural Network Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2022 47 E347 E352 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004307 34919075

85. Fan X. Zhang X. Zhang Z. Jiang Y. Deep Learning-Based Identification of Spinal Metastasis in Lung Cancer Using Spectral CT Images Sci. Program. 2021 2021 2779390 10.1155/2021/2779390

86. Yao J. Burns J.E. Sanoria V. Summers R.M. Mixed spine metastasis detection through positron emission tomography/computed tomography synthesis and multiclassifier J. Med. Imaging (Bellingham) 2017 4 024504 10.1117/1.JMI.4.2.024504 28612036 PMC5460314

87. Mehta S.D. Sebro R. Random forest classifiers aid in the detection of incidental osteoblastic osseous metastases in DEXA studies Int. J. Comput. Assist Radiol. Surg. 2019 14 903 909 10.1007/s11548-019-01933-1 30852715

88. Chang C.Y. Buckless C. Yeh K.J. Torriani M. Automated detection and segmentation of sclerotic spinal lesions on body CTs using a deep convolutional neural network Skelet. Radiol. 2022 51 391 399 10.1007/s00256-021-03873-x 34291325

89. Roth H.Y.J. Lu L. Stieger J. Burns J. Summers R.M. Detection of Sclerotic Spine Metastases via Random Aggregation of Deep Convolutional Neural Network Classifications Lect. Notes Comput. Vis. Biomech. 2014 20 3 12

90. Wiese T. Yao J. Burns J.E. Summers R.M. Detection of sclerotic bone metastases in the spine using watershed algorithm and graph cut Proceedings of the Medical Imaging 2012: Computer-Aided Diagnosis San Diego, CA, USA 4–9 February 2012

91. Burns J.E. Yao J. Wiese T.S. Munoz H.E. Jones E.C. Summers R.M. Automated detection of sclerotic metastases in the thoracolumbar spine at CT Radiology 2013 268 69 78 10.1148/radiol.13121351 23449957 PMC3689444

92. Hammon M. Dankerl P. Tsymbal A. Wels M. Kelm M. May M. Suehling M. Uder M. Cavallaro A. Automatic detection of lytic and blastic thoracolumbar spine metastases on computed tomography Eur. Radiol. 2013 23 1862 1870 10.1007/s00330-013-2774-5 23397381 PMC3674341

93. O’Connor S.D. Yao J. Summers R.M. Lytic metastases in thoracolumbar spine: Computer-aided detection at CT–preliminary study Radiology 2007 242 811 816 10.1148/radiol.2423060260 17325068

94. Hallinan J.T.P.D. Zhu L. Zhang W. Lim D.S.W. Baskar S. Low X.Z. Yeong K.Y. Teo E.C. Kumarakulasinghe N.B. Yap Q.V. Deep Learning Model for Classifying Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression on MRI Front. Oncol. 2022 12 10.3389/fonc.2022.849447 PMC9114468 35600347

95. Arends S.R.S. Savenije M.H.F. Eppinga W.S.C. van der Velden J.M. van den Berg C.A.T. Verhoeff J.J.C. Clinical utility of convolutional neural networks for treatment planning in radiotherapy for spinal metastases Phys. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 2022 21 42 47 10.1016/j.phro.2022.02.003 35243030 PMC8857663

96. Hille G. Steffen J. Dünnwald M. Becker M. Saalfeld S. Tönnies K. Spinal Metastases Segmentation in MR Imaging using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks arXiv 2020 2001.05834

97. Lang N. Zhang Y. Zhang E. Zhang J. Chow D. Chang P. Yu H.J. Yuan H. Su M.Y. Differentiation of spinal metastases originated from lung and other cancers using radiomics and deep learning based on DCE-MRI Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019 64 4 12 10.1016/j.mri.2019.02.013 30826448 PMC6713616

98. Wakabayashi K. Koide Y. Aoyama T. Shimizu H. Miyauchi R. Tanaka H. Tachibana H. Nakamura K. Kodaira T. A predictive model for pain response following radiotherapy for treatment of spinal metastases Sci. Rep. 2021 11 12908 10.1038/s41598-021-92363-0 34145367 PMC8213735

99. Gui C. Chen X. Sheikh K. Mathews L. Lo S.L. Lee J. Khan M.A. Sciubba D.M. Redmond K.J. Radiomic modeling to predict risk of vertebral compression fracture after stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases J. Neurosurg. Spine 2022 36 294 302 10.3171/2021.3.SPINE201534 34560656

100. Yin P. Mao N. Zhao C. Wu J. Chen L. Hong N. A Triple-Classification Radiomics Model for the Differentiation of Primary Chordoma, Giant Cell Tumor, and Metastatic Tumor of Sacrum Based on T2-Weighted and Contrast-Enhanced T1-Weighted MRI J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019 49 752 759 10.1002/jmri.26238 30430686

101. Shi Y.J. Zhu H.T. Li X.T. Zhang X.Y. Wei Y.Y. Yan S. Sun Y.S. Radiomics analysis based on multiple parameters MR imaging in the spine: Predicting treatment response of osteolytic bone metastases to chemotherapy in breast cancer patients Magn. Reson. Imaging 2022 92 10 18 10.1016/j.mri.2022.05.012 35623418

102. Ren M. Yang H. Lai Q. Shi D. Liu G. Shuang X. Su J. Xie L. Dong Y. Jiang X. MRI-based radiomics analysis for predicting the EGFR mutation based on thoracic spinal metastases in lung adenocarcinoma patients Med. Phys. 2021 48 5142 5151 10.1002/mp.15137 34318502

103. Fan Y. Dong Y. Yang H. Chen H. Yu Y. Wang X. Wang X. Yu T. Luo Y. Jiang X. Subregional radiomics analysis for the detection of the EGFR mutation on thoracic spinal metastases from lung cancer Phys. Med. Biol. 2021 66 215008 10.1088/1361-6560/ac2ea7 34633298

104. Cao R. Dong Y. Wang X. Ren M. Wang X. Zhao N. Yu T. Zhang L. Luo Y. Cui E.N. MRI-Based Radiomics Nomogram as a Potential Biomarker to Predict the EGFR Mutations in Exon 19 and 21 Based on Thoracic Spinal Metastases in Lung Adenocarcinoma Acad. Radiol. 2022 29 e9 e17 10.1016/j.acra.2021.06.004 34332860

105. Curtin M. Piggott R.P. Murphy E.P. Munigangaiah S. Baker J.F. McCabe J.P. Devitt A. Spinal Metastatic Disease: A Review of the Role of the Multidisciplinary Team Orthop. Surg. 2017 9 145 151 10.1111/os.12334 28544780 PMC6584164

106. Tomita K. Kawahara N. Kobayashi T. Yoshida A. Murakami H. Akamaru T. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001 26 298 306 10.1097/00007632-200102010-00016 11224867

107. Clemons M. Gelmon K.A. Pritchard K.I. Paterson A.H. Bone-targeted agents and skeletal-related events in breast cancer patients with bone metastases: The state of the art Curr. Oncol. 2012 19 259 268 10.3747/co.19.1011 23144574 PMC3457877

108. Hamaoka T. Madewell J.E. Podoloff D.A. Hortobagyi G.N. Ueno N.T. Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2004 22 2942 2953 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.181 15254062

109. Bilsky M.H. Lis E. Raizer J. Lee H. Boland P. The diagnosis and treatment of metastatic spinal tumor Oncologist 1999 4 459 469 10.1634/theoncologist.4-6-459 10631690

110. Aneja S. Chang E. Omuro A. Applications of artificial intelligence in neuro-oncology Curr. Opin. Neurol 2019 32 850 856 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000761 31609739

111. Duong M.T. Rauschecker A.M. Mohan S. Diverse Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Neuroradiology Neuroimaging Clin. N. Am. 2020 30 505 516 10.1016/j.nic.2020.07.003 33039000 PMC8530432

112. Muthukrishnan N. Maleki F. Ovens K. Reinhold C. Forghani B. Forghani R. Brief History of Artificial Intelligence Neuroimaging Clin. N. Am. 2020 30 393 399 10.1016/j.nic.2020.07.004 33038991

113. Raya-Povedano J.L. Romero-Martín S. Elías-Cabot E. Gubern-Mérida A. Rodríguez-Ruiz A. Álvarez-Benito M. AI-based Strategies to Reduce Workload in Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography and Tomosynthesis: A Retrospective Evaluation Radiology 2021 300 57 65 10.1148/radiol.2021203555 33944627

114. Coleman R.E. Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity Clin. Cancer Res. 2006 12 6243s 6249s 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0931 17062708

115. Perry J. Chambers A. Laperriere N. Systematic Review of the Diagnosis and Management of Malignant Extradural Spinal Cord Compression: The Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative‘s Neuro-Oncology Disease Site Group J. Clin. Oncol. 2005 23 2028 2037 10.1200/JCO.2005.00.067 15774794

116. Fox S. Spiess M. Hnenny L. Fourney D.R. Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS): Reliability Among Spine Fellows and Resident Physicians in Orthopedic Surgery and Neurosurgery Glob. Spine J. 2017 7 744 748 10.1177/2192568217697691 29238637 PMC5721994

117. Boon I.S. Au Yong T.P.T. Boon C.S. Assessing the Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Clinical Oncology: Utility of Machine Learning in Radiotherapy Target Volume Delineation Medicines 2018 5 131 10.3390/medicines5040131 30544901 PMC6313566

118. Li Q. Xu Y. Chen Z. Liu D. Feng S.T. Law M. Ye Y. Huang B. Tumor Segmentation in Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Deep Learning with Convolutional Neural Network BioMed Res. Int. 2018 2018 9128527 10.1155/2018/9128527 30417017 PMC6207874

119. Wong J. Fong A. McVicar N. Smith S. Giambattista J. Wells D. Kolbeck C. Giambattista J. Gondara L. Alexander A. Comparing deep learning-based auto-segmentation of organs at risk and clinical target volumes to expert inter-observer variability in radiotherapy planning Radiother. Oncol. 2020 144 152 158 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.10.019 31812930

120. Wang Z. Chang Y. Peng Z. Lv Y. Shi W. Wang F. Pei X. Xu X.G. Evaluation of deep learning-based auto-segmentation algorithms for delineating clinical target volume and organs at risk involving data for 125 cervical cancer patients J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2020 21 272 279 10.1002/acm2.13097 PMC7769393 33238060

121. Men K. Dai J. Li Y. Automatic segmentation of the clinical target volume and organs at risk in the planning CT for rectal cancer using deep dilated convolutional neural networks Med. Phys. 2017 44 6377 6389 10.1002/mp.12602 28963779

122. Vrtovec T. Močnik D. Strojan P. Pernuš F. Ibragimov B. Auto-segmentation of organs at risk for head and neck radiotherapy planning: From atlas-based to deep learning methods Med. Phys. 2020 47 e929 e950 10.1002/mp.14320 32510603

123. Winkel D.J. Weikert T.J. Breit H.-C. Chabin G. Gibson E. Heye T.J. Comaniciu D. Boll D.T. Validation of a fully automated liver segmentation algorithm using multi-scale deep reinforcement learning and comparison versus manual segmentation Eur. J. Radiol. 2020 126 108918 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108918 32171914

124. Cardobi N. Dal Palù A. Pedrini F. Beleù A. Nocini R. De Robertis R. Ruzzenente A. Salvia R. Montemezzi S. D’Onofrio M. An Overview of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Liver and Pancreatic Imaging Cancers 2021 13 2162 10.3390/cancers13092162 33946223 PMC8124771

125. Shin T.Y. Kim H. Lee J.-H. Choi J.-S. Min H.-S. Cho H. Kim K. Kang G. Kim J. Yoon S. Expert-level segmentation using deep learning for volumetry of polycystic kidney and liver Investig. Clin. Urol. 2020 61 555 564 10.4111/icu.20200086 33135401 PMC7606119

126. Goehler A. Harry Hsu T.-M. Lacson R. Gujrathi I. Hashemi R. Chlebus G. Szolovits P. Khorasani R. Three-Dimensional Neural Network to Automatically Assess Liver Tumor Burden Change on Consecutive Liver MRIs J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2020 17 1475 1484 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.06.033 32721409

127. Tokuhashi Y. Matsuzaki H. Oda H. Oshima M. Ryu J. A Revised Scoring System for Preoperative Evaluation of Metastatic Spine Tumor Prognosis Spine 2005 30 2186 2191 10.1097/01.brs.0000180401.06919.a5 16205345

128. Tokuhashi Y. Matsuzaki H. Toriyama S. Kawano H. Ohsaka S. Scoring System for the Preoperative Evaluation of Metastatic Spine Tumor Prognosis Spine 1990 15 1110 1113 10.1097/00007632-199011010-00005 1702559

129. Uei H. Tokuhashi Y. Prognostic factors in patients with metastatic spine tumors derived from lung cancer—a novel scoring system for predicting life expectancy World J. Surg. Oncol. 2018 16 131 10.1186/s12957-018-1439-x 29976208 PMC6034326

130. Czarnecka A.M. Brodziak A. Sobczuk P. Dendek C. Labochka D. Korniluk J. Bartnik E. Szczylik C. Metastatic Tumor Burden and Loci as Predictors of First Line Sunitinib Treatment Efficacy in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma Sci. Rep. 2019 9 7754 10.1038/s41598-019-44226-y 31123336 PMC6533291

131. Saxena S. Jena B. Gupta N. Das S. Sarmah D. Bhattacharya P. Nath T. Paul S. Fouda M.M. Kalra M. Role of Artificial Intelligence in Radiogenomics for Cancers in the Era of Precision Medicine Cancers 2022 14 2860 10.3390/cancers14122860 35740526 PMC9220825

132. Fathi Kazerooni A. Bagley S.J. Akbari H. Saxena S. Bagheri S. Guo J. Chawla S. Nabavizadeh A. Mohan S. Bakas S. Applications of Radiomics and Radiogenomics in High-Grade Gliomas in the Era of Precision Medicine Cancers 2021 13 5921 10.3390/cancers13235921 34885031 PMC8656630

133. Warth A. Penzel R. Lindenmaier H. Brandt R. Stenzinger A. Herpel E. Goeppert B. Thomas M. Herth F.J.F. Dienemann H. EGFR, KRAS, BRAF and ALK gene alterations in lung adenocarcinomas: Patient outcome, interplay with morphology and immunophenotype Eur. Respir. J. 2014 43 872 10.1183/09031936.00018013 23988776

134. Darvish L. Bahreyni-Toossi M.-T. Roozbeh N. Azimian H. The role of radiogenomics in the diagnosis of breast cancer: A systematic review Egypt. J. Med. Hum. Genet. 2022 23 99 10.1186/s43042-022-00310-z

135. Yamashita K. Hiwatashi A. Togao O. Kikuchi K. Hatae R. Yoshimoto K. Mizoguchi M. Suzuki S.O. Yoshiura T. Honda H. MR Imaging-Based Analysis of Glioblastoma Multiforme: Estimation of IDH1 Mutation Status AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2016 37 58 65 10.3174/ajnr.A4491 26405082 PMC7960195

136. Jenkinson M.D. du Plessis D.G. Smith T.S. Joyce K.A. Warnke P.C. Walker C. Histological growth patterns and genotype in oligodendroglial tumours: Correlation with MRI features Brain 2006 129 1884 1891 10.1093/brain/awl108 16670176

137. Kim J.W. Park C.K. Park S.H. Kim Y.H. Han J.H. Kim C.Y. Sohn C.H. Chang K.H. Jung H.W. Relationship between radiological characteristics and combined 1p and 19q deletion in World Health Organization grade III oligodendroglial tumours J. Neurol Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2011 82 224 227 10.1136/jnnp.2009.178806 20587495

138. Johnson D.R. Diehn F.E. Giannini C. Jenkins R.B. Jenkins S.M. Parney I.F. Kaufmann T.J. Genetically Defined Oligodendroglioma Is Characterized by Indistinct Tumor Borders at MRI AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2017 38 678 684 10.3174/ajnr.A5070 28126746 PMC7960254

139. Moon W.J. Choi J.W. Roh H.G. Lim S.D. Koh Y.C. Imaging parameters of high grade gliomas in relation to the MGMT promoter methylation status: The CT, diffusion tensor imaging, and perfusion MR imaging Neuroradiology 2012 54 555 563 10.1007/s00234-011-0947-y 21833736

140. Romano A. Calabria L.F. Tavanti F. Minniti G. Rossi-Espagnet M.C. Coppola V. Pugliese S. Guida D. Francione G. Colonnese C. Apparent diffusion coefficient obtained by magnetic resonance imaging as a prognostic marker in glioblastomas: Correlation with MGMT promoter methylation status Eur. Radiol. 2013 23 513 520 10.1007/s00330-012-2601-4 22875158

141. Rundle-Thiele D. Day B. Stringer B. Fay M. Martin J. Jeffree R.L. Thomas P. Bell C. Salvado O. Gal Y. Using the apparent diffusion coefficient to identifying MGMT promoter methylation status early in glioblastoma: Importance of analytical method J. Med. Radiat. Sci. 2015 62 92 98 10.1002/jmrs.103 26229673 PMC4462980

142. Sunwoo L. Choi S.H. Park C.K. Kim J.W. Yi K.S. Lee W.J. Yoon T.J. Song S.W. Kim J.E. Kim J.Y. Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient values measured by diffusion MRI and MGMT promoter methylation semiquantitatively analyzed with MS-MLPA in patients with glioblastoma multiforme J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013 37 351 358 10.1002/jmri.23838 23023975

143. Gore S. Chougule T. Jagtap J. Saini J. Ingalhalikar M. A Review of Radiomics and Deep Predictive Modeling in Glioma Characterization Acad. Radiol. 2021 28 1599 1621 10.1016/j.acra.2020.06.016 32660755

144. Seow P. Wong J.H.D. Ahmad-Annuar A. Mahajan A. Abdullah N.A. Ramli N. Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and radiogenomic biomarkers for glioma characterisation: A systematic review Br. J. Radiol. 2018 91 20170930 10.1259/bjr.20170930 29902076 PMC6319852

145. Korfiatis P. Erickson B. Deep learning can see the unseeable: Predicting molecular markers from MRI of brain gliomas Clin. Radiol. 2019 74 367 373 10.1016/j.crad.2019.01.028 30850092

146. Pinker K. Chin J. Melsaether A.N. Morris E.A. Moy L. Precision Medicine and Radiogenomics in Breast Cancer: New Approaches toward Diagnosis and Treatment Radiology 2018 287 732 747 10.1148/radiol.2018172171 29782246

147. Shui L. Ren H. Yang X. Li J. Chen Z. Yi C. Zhu H. Shui P. The Era of Radiogenomics in Precision Medicine: An Emerging Approach to Support Diagnosis, Treatment Decisions, and Prognostication in Oncology Front. Oncol. 2020 10 570465 10.3389/fonc.2020.570465 33575207 PMC7870863

148. Sciubba D.M. Petteys R.J. Dekutoski M.B. Fisher C.G. Fehlings M.G. Ondra S.L. Rhines L.D. Gokaslan Z.L. Diagnosis and management of metastatic spine disease. A review J. Neurosurg. Spine 2010 13 94 108 10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09202 20594024

149. Robson P. Metastatic spinal cord compression: A rare but important complication of cancer Clin. Med. (Lond.) 2014 14 542 545 10.7861/clinmedicine.14-5-542 25301920 PMC4951968

150. Piccioli A. Maccauro G. Spinelli M.S. Biagini R. Rossi B. Bone metastases of unknown origin: Epidemiology and principles of management J. Orthop. Traumatol. 2015 16 81 86 10.1007/s10195-015-0344-0 25726410 PMC4441638

151. Khadem N.R. Karimi S. Peck K.K. Yamada Y. Lis E. Lyo J. Bilsky M. Vargas H.A. Holodny A.I. Characterizing hypervascular and hypovascular metastases and normal bone marrow of the spine using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2012 33 2178 2185 10.3174/ajnr.A3104 22555585 PMC7965584

152. Lang N. Su M.Y. Yu H.J. Lin M. Hamamura M.J. Yuan H. Differentiation of myeloma and metastatic cancer in the spine using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013 31 1285 1291 10.1016/j.mri.2012.10.006 23290477 PMC3620894

153. Cheung J.P. Wei W.I. Luk K.D. Cervical spine complications after treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma Eur. Spine J. 2013 22 584 592 10.1007/s00586-012-2600-9 23203728 PMC3585640

154. Khorsandi A.S. Su H.K. Mourad W.F. Urken M.L. Persky M.S. Lazarus C.L. Jacobson A.S. Osteoradionecrosis of the subaxial cervical spine following treatment for head and neck carcinomas Br. J. Radiol. 2015 88 20140436 10.1259/bjr.20140436 25375626 PMC4277380

155. King A.D. Griffith J.F. Abrigo J.M. Leung S.F. Yau F.K. Tse G.M. Ahuja A.T. Osteoradionecrosis of the upper cervical spine: MR imaging following radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma Eur. J. Radiol. 2010 73 629 635 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.12.016 19200678

156. Myrehaug S. Sahgal A. Hayashi M. Levivier M. Ma L. Martinez R. Paddick I. Regis J. Ryu S. Slotman B. Reirradiation spine stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases: Systematic review J. Neurosurg. Spine 2017 27 428 435 10.3171/2017.2.SPINE16976 28708043

157. Husain Z.A. Sahgal A. De Salles A. Funaro M. Glover J. Hayashi M. Hiraoka M. Levivier M. Ma L. Martinez-Alvarez R. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for de novo spinal metastases: Systematic review J. Neurosurg. Spine 2017 27 295 302 10.3171/2017.1.SPINE16684 28598293

158. Al-Omair A. Smith R. Kiehl T.R. Lao L. Yu E. Massicotte E.M. Keith J. Fehlings M.G. Sahgal A. Radiation-induced vertebral compression fracture following spine stereotactic radiosurgery: Clinicopathological correlation J. Neurosurg. Spine 2013 18 430 435 10.3171/2013.2.SPINE12739 23495889

159. O’Sullivan S. McDermott R. Keys M. O’Sullivan M. Armstrong J. Faul C. Imaging response assessment following stereotactic body radiotherapy for solid tumour metastases of the spine: Current challenges and future directions J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 2020 64 385 397 10.1111/1754-9485.13032 32293114

160. Amini B. Beaman C.B. Madewell J.E. Allen P.K. Rhines L.D. Tatsui C.E. Tannir N.M. Li J. Brown P.D. Ghia A.J. Osseous Pseudoprogression in Vertebral Bodies Treated with Stereotactic Radiosurgery: A Secondary Analysis of Prospective Phase I/II Clinical Trials AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2016 37 387 392 10.3174/ajnr.A4528 26494690 PMC4752915

161. Bahig H. Simard D. Letourneau L. Wong P. Roberge D. Filion E. Donath D. Sahgal A. Masucci L. A Study of Pseudoprogression After Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2016 96 848 856 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.07.034 27788956

162. Taylor D.R. Weaver J.A. Tumor pseudoprogression of spinal metastasis after radiosurgery: A novel concept and case reports J. Neurosurg. Spine 2015 22 534 539 10.3171/2014.10.SPINE14444 25658469

163. Kim J.Y. Park J.E. Jo Y. Shim W.H. Nam S.J. Kim J.H. Yoo R.E. Choi S.H. Kim H.S. Incorporating diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MRI into a radiomics model improves diagnostic performance for pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients Neuro Oncol 2019 21 404 414 10.1093/neuonc/noy133 30107606 PMC6380413

164. Jang B.S. Jeon S.H. Kim I.H. Kim I.A. Prediction of Pseudoprogression versus Progression using Machine Learning Algorithm in Glioblastoma Sci. Rep. 2018 8 12516 10.1038/s41598-018-31007-2 30131513 PMC6104063

165. Thibault I. Chang E.L. Sheehan J. Ahluwalia M.S. Guckenberger M. Sohn M.J. Ryu S. Foote M. Lo S.S. Muacevic A. Response assessment after stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis: A report from the SPIne response assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SPINO) group Lancet Oncol. 2015 16 e595 e603 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00166-7 26678212