Imaging Radiomics Features for Recurrence Risk in Glioma Treatment Pathways
Keywords:
Glioma, Radiomics, Recurrence Risk, Mixed Evaluation, Imaging Radiomics FeaturesAbstract
Gliomas represent the most prevalent and aggressive primary brain tumors in adults, characterized by a notoriously high rate of recurrence despite advancements in multimodal therapeutic interventions. The inherent intratumoral heterogeneity and complex microenvironment of gliomas necessitate advanced diagnostic and prognostic tools to tailor post-operative and adjuvant treatment pathways effectively. This paper investigates the utility of imaging radiomics features, coupled with a novel mixed evaluation framework, to predict recurrence risk in glioma patients. By extracting high-dimensional quantitative data from standard-of-care magnetic resonance imaging, radiomics provides a non-invasive surrogate for genomic and transcriptomic profiling. The proposed mixed evaluation paradigm integrates these radiomic signatures with foundational clinical and histomolecular parameters, creating a multidimensional prognostic matrix. Through rigorous feature engineering and predictive modeling, we analyze the spatial and textual heterogeneity of tumor sub-regions and their correlation with disease-free survival intervals. The results demonstrate that incorporating mixed evaluation methodologies significantly enhances the stratification of patients into high and low recurrence risk categories, thereby outperforming traditional clinical prognostic models. This comprehensive analysis emphasizes the potential of radiomics as an indispensable component of precision oncology, ultimately facilitating dynamic, personalized treatment modifications and improving overall clinical workflows in neuro-oncology.References
1. Greenland, S.; Senn, S.J.; Rothman, K.J.; Carlin, J.B.; Poole, C.; Goodman, S.N.; Altman, D.G. Statistical tests, p values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2016, 31, 337–350. [ Central]
2. Gigerenzer, G.; Krauss, S.; Vitouch, O. The Null Ritual: What You Always Wanted to Know About Significance Testing but Were Afraid to Ask. In The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences; Kaplan, D., Ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 392–409.
3. Tanas, Y.; Swed, S.; Spiegel, A. Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction Using a Novel Acellular Dermal Matrix: Framework for a Cohort Study. Int. J. Surg. Protoc. 2025, 29, 161–166.
4. Mahdy, W.Y.B.; Yamamoto, K.; Ito, T.; Fujiwara, N.; Fujioka, K.; Horai, T.; Otsuka, I.; Imafuku, H.; Omura, T.; Iijima, K.; et al. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model to investigate the effect of pregnancy on risperidone and paliperidone pharmacokinetics: Application to a pregnant woman and her neonate. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2023, 16, 618–630.
5. Szychta, P. Aesthetic Potential and Safety Profile of Nanotextured Breast Implants in 1000 Cases of Breast Augmentation: Evaluation of a Single-Center Experience. Aesthetic Surg. J. 2024, 44, 925–935.
6. Juanpere, S.; Perez, E.; Huc, O.; Motos, N.; Pont, J.; Pedraza, S. Imaging of Breast Implants—A Pictorial Review. Insights Imaging 2011, 2, 653–670.
7. Glynn, C.; Litherland, J. Imaging Breast Augmentation and Reconstruction. Br. J. Radiol. 2008, 81, 587–595.
8. Wasserstein, R.L.; Lazar, N.A. The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. Am. Stat. 2016, 70, 129–133.
9. Greenland, S. Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research: I. Foundations and basic methods. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2006, 35, 765–775.
10. Goodman, S.N.; Fanelli, D.; Ioannidis, J.P. What does research reproducibility mean? Sci. Transl. Med. 2016, 8, 341ps12.
11. de Boer, M.; van Leeuwen, F.E.; Hauptmann, M.; Overbeek, L.I.H.; de Boer, J.P.; Hijmering, N.J.; Sernee, A.; Klazen, C.A.H.; Lobbes, M.B.I.; van der Hulst, R.R.W.J.; et al. Breast Implants and the Risk of Anaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma in the Breast. JAMA Oncol. 2018, 4, 335–341.
12. Kosorok, M.R.; Laber, E.B. Precision Medicine. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 2019, 6, 263–286.
13. Bletsis, P.P.; Bouwer, L.R.; Ultee, K.H.; Cromheecke, M.; van der Lei, B. Evaluation of Anatomical and Round Breast Implant Aesthetics and Preferences in Dutch Young Lay and Plastic Surgeon Cohort. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. JPRAS 2018, 71, 1116–1122.
14. Gabriel, A.; Maxwell, G.P. Implant Selection in the Setting of Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2019, 8, 36–42.
15. Pérez-Blanco, J.S.; Lanao, J.M. Model-Informed Precision Dosing (MIPD). Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 2731.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated.