Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies
Open Access

Radiomics for Growth Prediction of Vestibular Schwannomas in Neurofibromatosis Type 2

NINA BOE, VICTOR F. MAUTNER, REINHARD E. FRIEDRICH, SAID C. FARSCHTSCHI, LASSE DÜHRSEN, HANNO S. MEYER and JOHANNES A. KOEPPEN
Anticancer Research May 2025, 45 (5) 2137-2146; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.17588
NINA BOE
1Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nina.boe@gmx.net
VICTOR F. MAUTNER
2Department of Neurology, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
REINHARD E. FRIEDRICH
3Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SAID C. FARSCHTSCHI
2Department of Neurology, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LASSE DÜHRSEN
1Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HANNO S. MEYER
2Department of Neurology, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JOHANNES A. KOEPPEN
1Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: koeppen@ieee.org
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: NF2-related schwannomatosis, formerly known as Neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) is characterized by bilateral vestibular schwannomas (VS). Managing NF2 requires balancing watchful waiting with surgical intervention, each carrying inherent risks. While these risks are acknowledged, they have not yet been subjected to systematic investigation. Accurate prognosis of tumor growth is crucial for clinical decision-making. This study investigated radiomics features from longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data to predict VS growth.

Patients and Methods: Radiomics features were extracted from cranial MRIs of 32 NF2 patients, each with at least two or more imaging time points. The association between these features and tumor growth was analyzed through correlation, visual inspection, and the Boruta algorithm.

Results: Correlations between growth rates and radiomics features were weak (ρ≤0.23, p<0.016). Three features exhibited a bimodal distribution, with cluster affiliation linked to tumor growth rate [cluster A: 7.9%/month, cluster B: 2.0%/month; Fisher exact odds ratio (OR)=2.55, p=0.010]. When considering only the first tumors in the MRI series, the Fisher exact OR was 2.29 (p=0.223). Boruta analysis identified wavelet.HLH_glcm_InverseVariance as a key feature, also relevant in the bimodal distribution. The Fisher exact OR of wavelet.HLH_glcm_InverseVariance for tumor growth was 2.64 (p=0.011) for all tumors and 2.21 (p=0.229) for initial tumors in the MRI series.

Conclusion: Bimodally distributed radiomics features from initial MRIs did not reliably predict rapid tumor growth (error probability: 23%) but may aid in planning MRI follow-up intervals.

Keywords:
  • NF2
  • radiomics
  • vestibular schwannomas
  • growth prediction
  • Boruta analysis

Introduction

NF2 is an autosomal dominant inherited disorder predisposing individuals to neural tumors (1). The estimated incidence is approximately one in 28,000, with a prevalence of one in 50,000, which is expected to rise due to improved diagnostics and aging population (2, 3). NF2 is caused by mutations in the NF2 gene located on chromosome 22q12, which encodes the tumor suppressor protein Merlin (4). Various pathogenic variants of the NF2 gene have been identified, occurring either as germline mutations or as mosaic variants acquired during embryonic development (5, 6).

The hallmark clinical features of NF2 are bilateral vestibular schwannomas (VS), present in approximately 90% of affected individuals (7, 8). Additionally, multiple meningiomas, other schwannomas, and ependymomas are frequently observed (9). Diagnostic criteria also include cataracts, retinal hamartomas, and germline pathogenic variants in the NF2-gene (10). The most common initial symptoms of VS are tinnitus and hearing loss (7, 11).

The management of NF2 aims to balance careful conservative monitoring with surgical intervention or, in the case of inoperable VS, radiotherapy (12, 13). Both approaches carry significant risks (9, 14, 15). The off-label use of bevacizumab and brigatinib has shown potential in controlling tumor growth (16-18). The primary objective is to preserve function and maintain a high quality of life for as long as possible (11).

Prognostic factors in NF2. The age at symptom onset and the age at diagnosis are critical predictors of disease severity (19-21). These factors correlate with VS growth rate (19, 22) as well as overall mortality (23).

Radiomics and tumor growth prediction. Radiomics facilitates the quantitative analysis of medical imaging data by extracting tissue characteristics such as shape and heterogeneity (24). By integrating demographic, histological, and genetic data, radiomics provides a non-invasive and powerful tool for clinical diagnostics (25).

Radiomics feature analyses in sporadic VS. Since 2012, the prognostic value of radiomics features in sporadic VS has been investigated, yielding inconsistent results. Truong et al. (26) analyzed a cohort of 78 patients and found no correlation between MRI texture analysis and tumor growth rate. In contrast, Milchenko et al. (27) examined 229 patients and demonstrated that in automated radiomics analysis maximum and minimum intensity features provide a reliable prediction of tumor growth.

Tumor growth prediction of sporadic VS. The growth rate of sporadic VS and progressive hearing loss are critical factors in determining the optimal timing for aggressive treatment options such as microsurgical resection or radiotherapy (28-30). Similarly, early tumor growth prediction is essential for therapy planning in NF2-associated VS (31). To the best of our knowledge, the prognostic value of radiomics analysis for VS growth prediction in patients with NF2 has not yet been systematically investigated (as of March 6, 2025).

Patients and Methods

The Ethics Committee of the Hamburg Medical Council declared not having concerns on this study (Case Number: 2024-300549-WF), as the patient data and imaging used in this research were fully anonymized and could no longer be linked to any individual.

This retrospective study is based on 182 cranial MRIs from 35 consecutive patients with NF2 treated in the Neurofibromatosis Outpatient Department of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf between 2002 and 2020. In this cohort no mosaic variants were detected by genetic analyses. NF2 was diagnosed by the criteria valid at the time of initial presentation (32). MRIs were acquired at a minimum of two time points (median: 5, range=2-15) using Siemens Avanto and Symphony 1.5T scanners (Siemens Healthineers AG, Erlangen, Germany). For an overview of the workflow, see Figure 1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Overview of the radiomics workflow from MRI preprocessing to feature extraction in NF2-associated vestibular schwannomas.

Two patients were excluded due to implausible tumor growth curves. Additionally, for two other patients, imaging of one side was excluded following neurosurgical intervention. Furthermore, MRIs from four patients were removed after undergoing treatment with Bevacizumab or Everolimus.

Study population. After exclusions, this study included 170 cranial MRTs with 232 VS (left: 112, right: 120) from 32 patients. In this selected cohort, the median age at the first MRI was 31 years (range=2-67 years), with a female-to-male ratio of 20:12.

Tumor segmentation. Despite extensive efforts to automate tumor segmentation in medical imaging datasets (33, 34), manual segmentation by an experienced clinician, with confirmation by an independent second reviewer, remains the gold standard (35-37). It has also been demonstrated for NF2-associated VS that 3D-segmented volume analysis is superior to conventional 1D methods in many cases (38).

Moreover, for smaller datasets, standardizing and organizing imaging data within the directory structure for automation would have been significantly more labor-intensive than manual tumor segmentation in our setting.

Tumor segmentation workflow. 1) Conversion of DICOM MRIs to NIfTI Format: Performed using dcm2niix in MRIcroGL (39, 40). This step includes anonymization of MRI data. 2) Brain extraction/skull stripping: Conducted using Robex (41, 42). 3) Intensity normalization: Applied by Pypi (43). 4) Coregistration of image series for each patient: Performed using FSL FLIRT (44). 5) Manual segmentation: Conducted by two experienced raters considering tumor size progression (45). A typical example is depicted in Figure 2. Segmentations from preceding time points were taken into consideration.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Segmentation of the left vestibular schwannoma in patient #17.

Radiomics feature extraction. Radiomics feature extraction was performed using PyRadiomics (46, 47). The developers of this open-source Python package aim to establish a reference standard for radiomics analysis and are actively involved in the Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative (24). However, full consistency of results across different radiomics analysis tools has not yet been achieved (48). The radiomics parameters were optimized following the recommendations in (49).

Tumor growth assessment. The primary parameter used to evaluate tumor growth was the Percentage Growth Rate per Month (PGRpM), calculated relative to the previous volume.

Utilizing PGRpM as a central metric for tumor growth enables a standardized and comparable assessment of tumor dynamics. Absolute volumetric changes alone are insufficient to accurately capture individual tumor growth patterns, particularly in cases with varying tumor sizes and differing examination intervals. PGRpM provides a normalized measure, allowing for an objective quantification of growth rates independent of initial tumor volumes and imaging time points. This approach facilitates the early identification of growth trends and supports more precise therapeutic decision-making.

Three methodological approaches were applied in the analysis: (a) Correlation analysis between tumor growth and specific features using Spearman’s correlation coefficient (50); (b) Visual inspection of tumor growth curves in relation to individual radiomics features. For visual inspection and correlation analysis, z-score normalization was applied to the radiomics features (51); (c) Importance analysis via Boruta (52, 53), a machine learning algorithm designed for large datasets and based on an extension of the random forest method (54). In Boruta analyses, features with high intercorrelation and low correlation with tumor growth were excluded, reducing the initial set from 982 to 102 features, following the approach of Escudero-Sanchez et al. (55). Given the iterative nature of the Boruta algorithm, multiple runs were performed to ensure a stable and reliable selection of relevant features (53).

Results

Manual segmentation. In the manual segmentation of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted sequences, implausible tumor size progressions of VS were repeatedly observed. These inconsistencies did not occur in T2-weighted sequences. All T2 sequences were acquired with a slice thickness of 5 mm, echo times ranging from 0.077 to 0.106 ms, and repetition times between 4.00 and 5.94 ms.

Correlations. No Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) greater than 0.23 was observed between PGRpM and the distribution of 982 radiomics features, with p-values ranging from <0.001 to 0.016.

Visual inspection. Upon visual examination of the graphs depicting PGRpM versus the distribution of z-scored features, three radiomics features exhibited a bimodal distribution, forming distinct clusters A and B. These features (Figure 3) were: zscore_wavelet-HHH_glrlm_ GrayLevelNonUniformityNormalized; zscore_wavelet-HLH_glcm_InverseVariance; and zscore_wavelet-HHH_ glcm_InverseVariance.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Bimodal radiomics features and their relationship with percentage growth rate per month, based on 232 vestibular schwannomas.

A threshold of -1 was defined to assign features to either cluster A or B. Among the 232 tumors, 229 were clearly classified into one of the two clusters, while three tumors exhibited overlap between both clusters.

A strong association was observed between cluster membership and PGRpM. Tumors in cluster A had a mean PGRpM of 7.9% per month, whereas those in cluster B exhibited a mean PGRpM of 2.0% per month. The odds ratio (OR) was 2.54 [95% confidence interval (CI)=1.1-5.4], indicating that tumors in the cluster A had a 2.54-fold higher risk of faster growth (Fisher’s exact test: OR=2.55, p=0.010).

When considering only the first imaging set from each patient’s MRI series for these three features, the OR was 2.25 (95%CI=0.5-8.9; Fisher’s exact OR=2.286, p=0.223). When considering the wavelet.HLH_glcm_InverseVariance alone in the initial examination the Fisher OR was 2.214, p=0.229.

Boruta analysis. The 102 selected features were analyzed using 1,000 iterations of the Boruta algorithm, with a significance threshold of p<0.05.

Features classified as “confirmed” in more than 600 iterations included: wavelet.LLH_firstorder_Skewness; wavelet.HLH_glcm_InverseVariance; wavelet.LLH_glcm_ ClusterShade. These features exhibited mean importance values ranging from 4.30 to 5.27 (Table I). The feature wavelet.HLH_glcm_InverseVariance was identified as relevant in both the Boruta analysis and the bimodal distribution.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Radiomics features present in >600 runs of Boruta.

Higher wavelet.HLH_glcm_InverseVariance values suggest smooth, uniform regions with minimal intensity fluctuations, commonly found in homogeneous surfaces or soft-textured tissues in medical imaging. Lower values indicate high-contrast, textured, or rough regions, which may correspond to structural details, edges, or areas with fine-grained variations (56, 57).

Beyond the analysis of NF2 VS, glcm-Inverse-variance emerged as the feature most strongly correlated with local recurrence of lung cancer (58). In another study of histological findings in lung cancer, previous research has reported a significant correlation between glcm-Inverse-variance and the Ki-67 proliferation index (p<0.001) (59).

Discussion

The bimodal distribution of wavelet.HLH_glcm_Inverse Variance emerges as a significant predictor of VS growth across all tumors (Fisher’s exact OR=2.64, p=0.011), and in the initial examination (Fisher’s exact OR=2.214, p=0.229). The high importance of this feature is further emphasized by the Boruta analysis, where it was confirmed in 691 out of 1,000 iterations, with a mean importance score of 4.61.

Limitations. This study has several significant limitations. As a retrospective analysis, it is inherently subject to limited generalizability (60, 61). Furthermore, the relatively small patient cohort of only 32 individuals necessitates a critical interpretation of the findings. The slice thickness of 5 mm in the segmented T2-weighted sequences represents a major potential source of error due to partial volume effects (62). To mitigate this issue, the study accounted for the segmentation from the preceding time point in each case.

The pronounced differences between cluster A and B were largely driven by two tumors with exceptionally high growth rates in cluster A. After excluding these outliers, the OR for wavelet.HLH_glcm_InverseVariance between clusters decreased to 1.72 (95%CI=0.80-3.52; Fisher’s exact test OR=1.73, p=0.113). However, these extreme growth rates were thoroughly reviewed and deemed valid.

Interpretation. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the association between radiomics features and NF2-associated VS. In previous studies on sporadic acoustic neuromas, only a limited number of features were analyzed (27). Furthermore, the relatively new Boruta algorithm, which enhances feature selection, has not yet been utilized in this context (26, 63, 64).

Conclusion

This study aimed to predict the growth behavior of NF2-associated VS based on radiomics features. While certain features, such as wavelet.HLH_glcm_InverseVariance, appear to have prognostic relevance. Given an error probability of 23%, the predictive value for rapid tumor growth based on the first MRI alone is insufficient for clinical decision-making. However, this feature may still be useful in determining the optimal frequency of MRI follow-up examinations.

Acknowledgements

The MRI series were kindly provided by Prof. Victor F. Mautner from the Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE). This study was funded by the German lay organisation Bundesverband Neurofibromatose e.V. (Nina Boe and Johannes A. Koeppen).

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    Study conception and design: Nina Boe, Johannes A. Koeppen, Victor F. Mautner; Data collection: Victor F. Mautner; Data analysis: Nina Boe, Johannes A. Koeppen; Results interpretation: Reinhard E. Friedrich, Victor F. Mautner, Nina Boe, Johannes A. Koeppen; Drafting the manuscript: Nina Boe, Johannes A. Koeppen; Manuscript revision and approval: All Authors.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    SF has received speaker honoraria from Alexion and compensation for advice or lecturing from SpringWorks and Alexion not related to this study. All other Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

  • Received March 11, 2025.
  • Revision received March 21, 2025.
  • Accepted March 31, 2025.
  • Copyright © 2025 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Lloyd SK,
    2. Evans DG
    : Neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2): diagnosis and management. Handb Clin Neurol 115: 957-967, 2013. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-52902-2.00054-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Evans DG,
    2. Bowers NL,
    3. Tobi S,
    4. Hartley C,
    5. Wallace AJ,
    6. King AT,
    7. Lloyd SKW,
    8. Rutherford SA,
    9. Hammerbeck-Ward C,
    10. Pathmanaban ON,
    11. Freeman SR,
    12. Ealing J,
    13. Kellett M,
    14. Laitt R,
    15. Thomas O,
    16. Halliday D,
    17. Ferner R,
    18. Taylor A,
    19. Duff C,
    20. Harkness EF,
    21. Smith MJ
    : Schwannomatosis: a genetic and epidemiological study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 89(11): 1215-1219, 2018. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-318538
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Evans DG,
    2. King AT,
    3. Bowers NL,
    4. Tobi S,
    5. Wallace AJ,
    6. Perry M,
    7. Anup R,
    8. Lloyd SK,
    9. Rutherford SA,
    10. Hammerbeck-Ward C,
    11. Pathmanaban ON,
    12. Stapleton E,
    13. Freeman SR,
    14. Kellett M,
    15. Halliday D,
    16. Parry A,
    17. Gair JJ,
    18. Axon P,
    19. Laitt R,
    20. Thomas O,
    21. Afridi S,
    22. Ferner RE,
    23. Harkness EF,
    24. Smith MJ
    : Identifying the deficiencies of current diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis 2 using databases of 2777 individuals with molecular testing. Genet Med et 21(7): 1525-1533, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0384-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Giovannini M,
    2. Robanus-Maandag E,
    3. Niwa-Kawakita M,
    4. van der Valk M,
    5. Woodruff JM,
    6. Goutebroze L,
    7. Mérel P,
    8. Berns A,
    9. Thomas G
    : Schwann cell hyperplasia and tumors in transgenic mice expressing a naturally occurring mutant NF2 protein. Genes Dev 13(8): 978-986, 1999. DOI: 10.1101/gad.13.8.978
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Evans DG,
    2. Wallace AJ,
    3. Wu CL,
    4. Trueman L,
    5. Ramsden RT,
    6. Strachan T
    : Somatic mosaicism: a common cause of classic disease in tumor-prone syndromes? Lessons from type 2 neurofibromatosis. Am J Hum Genet 63(3): 727-736, 1998. DOI: 10.1086/512074
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Welling DB,
    2. Packer MD,
    3. Chang LS
    : Molecular studies of vestibular schwannomas: a review. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 15(5): 341-346, 2007. DOI: 10.1097/moo.0b013e3282b97310
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Mautner VF,
    2. Lindenau M,
    3. Baser ME,
    4. Hazim W,
    5. Tatagiba M,
    6. Haase W,
    7. Samii M,
    8. Wais R,
    9. Pulst SM
    : The neuroimaging and clinical spectrum of neurofibromatosis 2. Neurosurgery 38(5): 880-886, 1996. DOI: 10.1097/00006123-199605000-00004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Dirks MS,
    2. Butman JA,
    3. Kim HJ,
    4. Wu T,
    5. Morgan K,
    6. Tran AP,
    7. Lonser RR,
    8. Asthagiri AR
    : Long-term natural history of neurofibromatosis Type 2-associated intracranial tumors. J Neurosurg 117(1): 109-117, 2012. DOI: 10.3171/2012.3.JNS111649
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Evans DG,
    2. Baser ME,
    3. O’Reilly B,
    4. Rowe J,
    5. Gleeson M,
    6. Saeed S,
    7. King A,
    8. Huson SM,
    9. Kerr R,
    10. Thomas N,
    11. Irving R,
    12. MacFarlane R,
    13. Ferner R,
    14. McLeod R,
    15. Moffat D,
    16. Ramsden R
    : Management of the patient and family with neurofibromatosis 2: a consensus conference statement. Br J Neurosurg 19(1): 5-12, 2005. DOI: 10.1080/02688690500081206
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Plotkin SR,
    2. Messiaen L,
    3. Legius E,
    4. Pancza P,
    5. Avery RA,
    6. Blakeley JO,
    7. Babovic-Vuksanovic D,
    8. Ferner R,
    9. Fisher MJ,
    10. Friedman JM,
    11. Giovannini M,
    12. Gutmann DH,
    13. Hanemann CO,
    14. Kalamarides M,
    15. Kehrer-Sawatzki H,
    16. Korf BR,
    17. Mautner VF,
    18. MacCollin M,
    19. Papi L,
    20. Rauen KA,
    21. Riccardi V,
    22. Schorry E,
    23. Smith MJ,
    24. Stemmer-Rachamimov A,
    25. Stevenson DA,
    26. Ullrich NJ,
    27. Viskochil D,
    28. Wimmer K,
    29. Yohay K, International Consensus Group on Neurofibromatosis Diagnostic Criteria (I-NF-DC),
    30. Huson SM,
    31. Wolkenstein P,
    32. Evans DG
    : Updated diagnostic criteria and nomenclature for neurofibromatosis type 2 and schwannomatosis: An international consensus recommendation. Genet Med 24(9): 1967-1977, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.05.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Evans DG
    : Neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2): a clinical and molecular review. Orphanet J Rare Dis 4: 16, 2009. DOI: 10.1186/1750-1172-4-16
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Blakeley JO,
    2. Evans DG,
    3. Adler J,
    4. Brackmann D,
    5. Chen R,
    6. Ferner RE,
    7. Hanemann CO,
    8. Harris G,
    9. Huson SM,
    10. Jacob A,
    11. Kalamarides M,
    12. Karajannis MA,
    13. Korf BR,
    14. Mautner VF,
    15. McClatchey AI,
    16. Miao H,
    17. Plotkin SR,
    18. Slattery W 3rd.,
    19. Stemmer-Rachamimov AO,
    20. Welling DB,
    21. Wen PY,
    22. Widemann B,
    23. Hunter-Schaedle K,
    24. Giovannini M
    : Consensus recommendations for current treatments and accelerating clinical trials for patients with neurofibromatosis type 2. Am J Med Genet A 158A(1): 24-41, 2012. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.34359
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Evans DG,
    2. Halliday D,
    3. Obholzer R,
    4. Afridi S,
    5. Forde C,
    6. Rutherford SA,
    7. Hammerbeck-Ward C,
    8. Lloyd SK,
    9. Freeman SM,
    10. Pathmanaban ON,
    11. Thomas OM,
    12. Laitt RD,
    13. Stivaros S,
    14. Kilday JP,
    15. Vassallo G,
    16. McBain C,
    17. Lavin T,
    18. Paterson C,
    19. Whitfield G,
    20. McCabe MG,
    21. Axon PR,
    22. Halliday J,
    23. Mackeith S,
    24. Parry A, English Specialist NF2 Research Group,
    25. Harkness EF,
    26. Buttimore J,
    27. King AT
    : Radiation treatment of benign tumors in NF2-related-schwannomatosis: A national study of 266 irradiated patients showing a significant increase in malignancy/malignant progression. Neurooncol Adv 5(1): vdad025, 2023. DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdad025
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Samii M,
    2. Matthies C,
    3. Tatagiba M
    : Management of vestibular schwannomas (acoustic neuromas): auditory and facial nerve function after resection of 120 vestibular schwannomas in patients with neurofibromatosis 2. Neurosurgery 40(4): 696-706, 1997. DOI: 10.1097/00006123-199704000-00007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Chung LK,
    2. Nguyen TP,
    3. Sheppard JP,
    4. Lagman C,
    5. Tenn S,
    6. Lee P,
    7. Kaprealian T,
    8. Chin R,
    9. Gopen Q,
    10. Yang I
    : A systematic review of radiosurgery versus surgery for neurofibromatosis type 2 vestibular schwannomas. World Neurosurg 109: 47-58, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.08.159
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Plotkin SR,
    2. Duda DG,
    3. Muzikansky A,
    4. Allen J,
    5. Blakeley J,
    6. Rosser T,
    7. Campian JL,
    8. Clapp DW,
    9. Fisher MJ,
    10. Tonsgard J,
    11. Ullrich N,
    12. Thomas C,
    13. Cutter G,
    14. Korf B,
    15. Packer R,
    16. Karajannis MA
    : Multicenter, prospective, phase II and biomarker study of high-dose bevacizumab as induction therapy in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 and progressive vestibular schwannoma. J Clin Oncol 37(35): 3446-3454, 2019. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.01367
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Plotkin SR,
    2. Allen J,
    3. Dhall G,
    4. Campian JL,
    5. Clapp DW,
    6. Fisher MJ,
    7. Jain RK,
    8. Tonsgard J,
    9. Ullrich NJ,
    10. Thomas C,
    11. Edwards LJ,
    12. Korf B,
    13. Packer R,
    14. Karajannis MA,
    15. Blakeley JO
    : Multicenter, prospective, phase II study of maintenance bevacizumab for children and adults with NF2-related schwannomatosis and progressive vestibular schwannoma. Neuro Oncol 25(8): 1498-1506, 2023. DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noad066
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Plotkin SR,
    2. Yohay KH,
    3. Nghiemphu PL,
    4. Dinh CT,
    5. Babovic-Vuksanovic D,
    6. Merker VL,
    7. Bakker A,
    8. Fell G,
    9. Trippa L,
    10. Blakeley JO
    : Brigatinib in NF2 -related schwannomatosis with progressive tumors. N Engl J Med 390(24): 2284-2294, 2024. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2400985
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Baser ME,
    2. Friedman JM,
    3. Aeschliman D,
    4. Joe H,
    5. Wallace AJ,
    6. Ramsden RT,
    7. Evans DG
    : Predictors of the risk of mortality in neurofibromatosis 2. Am J Hum Genet 71(4): 715-723, 2002. DOI: 10.1086/342716
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. MacCollin M,
    2. Mautner VF
    : The diagnosis and management of Neurofibromatosis 2 in childhood. Semin Pediatr Neurol 5(4): 243-252, 1998. DOI: 10.1016/s1071-9091(98)80003-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Lawson McLean AC,
    2. Löschner D,
    3. Farschtschi S,
    4. Dengler NF,
    5. Rosahl SK
    : Clinical severity grading of NF2-related schwannomatosis. Orphanet J Rare Dis 20(1): 4, 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s13023-024-03512-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Mautner VF,
    2. Baser ME,
    3. Thakkar SD,
    4. Feigen UM,
    5. Friedman JM,
    6. Kluwe L
    : Vestibular schwannoma growth in patients with neurofibromatosis Type 2: a longitudinal study. J Neurosurg 96(2): 223-228, 2002. DOI: 10.3171/jns.2002.96.2.0223
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Otsuka G,
    2. Saito K,
    3. Nagatani T,
    4. Yoshida J
    : Age at symptom onset and long-term survival in patients with neurofibromatosis Type 2. J Neurosurg 99(3): 480-483, 2003. DOI: 10.3171/jns.2003.99.3.0480
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Zwanenburg A,
    2. Vallières M,
    3. Abdalah MA,
    4. Aerts HJWL,
    5. Andrearczyk V,
    6. Apte A,
    7. Ashrafinia S,
    8. Bakas S,
    9. Beukinga RJ,
    10. Boellaard R,
    11. Bogowicz M,
    12. Boldrini L,
    13. Buvat I,
    14. Cook GJR,
    15. Davatzikos C,
    16. Depeursinge A,
    17. Desseroit MC,
    18. Dinapoli N,
    19. Dinh CV,
    20. Echegaray S,
    21. El Naqa I,
    22. Fedorov AY,
    23. Gatta R,
    24. Gillies RJ,
    25. Goh V,
    26. Götz M,
    27. Guckenberger M,
    28. Ha SM,
    29. Hatt M,
    30. Isensee F,
    31. Lambin P,
    32. Leger S,
    33. Leijenaar RTH,
    34. Lenkowicz J,
    35. Lippert F,
    36. Losnegård A,
    37. Maier-Hein KH,
    38. Morin O,
    39. Müller H,
    40. Napel S,
    41. Nioche C,
    42. Orlhac F,
    43. Pati S,
    44. Pfaehler EAG,
    45. Rahmim A,
    46. Rao AUK,
    47. Scherer J,
    48. Siddique MM,
    49. Sijtsema NM,
    50. Socarras Fernandez J,
    51. Spezi E,
    52. Steenbakkers RJHM,
    53. Tanadini-Lang S,
    54. Thorwarth D,
    55. Troost EGC,
    56. Upadhaya T,
    57. Valentini V,
    58. van Dijk LV,
    59. van Griethuysen J,
    60. van Velden FHP,
    61. Whybra P,
    62. Richter C,
    63. Löck S
    : The image biomarker standardization initiative: standardized quantitative radiomics for high-throughput image-based phenotyping. Radiology 295(2): 328-338, 2020. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020191145
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Mayerhoefer ME,
    2. Materka A,
    3. Langs G,
    4. Häggström I,
    5. Szczypiński P,
    6. Gibbs P,
    7. Cook G
    : Introduction to radiomics. J Nucl Med 61(4): 488-495, 2020. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.118.222893
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Truong LF,
    2. Kleiber JC,
    3. Durot C,
    4. Brenet E,
    5. Barbe C,
    6. Hoeffel C,
    7. Bazin A,
    8. Labrousse M,
    9. Dubernard X
    : The study of predictive factors for the evolution of vestibular schwannomas. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 280(4): 1661-1670, 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-022-07651-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Milchenko M,
    2. Cross K,
    3. Smith H,
    4. LaMontagne P,
    5. Chakrabarty S,
    6. Varagur K,
    7. Chatterjee R,
    8. Bhuvic P,
    9. Kim A,
    10. Marcus D
    : AI segmentation of vestibular schwannomas with radiomic analysis and clinical correlates. MedRxiv, 2023. DOI: 10.1101/2023.06.15.23291439
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Jethanamest D,
    2. Rivera AM,
    3. Ji H,
    4. Chokkalingam V,
    5. Telischi FF,
    6. Angeli SI
    : Conservative management of vestibular schwannoma: Predictors of growth and hearing. Laryngoscope 125(9): 2163-2168, 2015. DOI: 10.1002/lary.25159
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Carlson ML,
    2. Habermann EB,
    3. Wagie AE,
    4. Driscoll CL,
    5. Van Gompel JJ,
    6. Jacob JT,
    7. Link MJ
    : The changing landscape of vestibular schwannoma management in the United States—a shift toward conservatism. Otolaryngol Neck Surg 153(3): 440-446, 2015. DOI: 10.1177/0194599815590105
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Lim KH,
    2. Lee SH,
    3. Song I,
    4. Yoon HS,
    5. Kim HJ,
    6. Lee YH,
    7. Kim E,
    8. Rah YC,
    9. Choi J
    : Analysis of the association between vestibular schwannoma and hearing status using a newly developed radiomics technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 281(6): 2951-2957, 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-023-08410-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Moualed D,
    2. Wong J,
    3. Thomas O,
    4. Heal C,
    5. Saqib R,
    6. Choi C,
    7. Lloyd S,
    8. Rutherford S,
    9. Stapleton E,
    10. Hammerbeck-Ward C,
    11. Pathmanaban O,
    12. Laitt R,
    13. Smith M,
    14. Wallace A,
    15. Kellett M,
    16. Evans G,
    17. King A,
    18. Freeman S
    : Prevalence and natural history of schwannomas in neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2): the influence of pathogenic variants. Eur J Hum Genet 30(4): 458-464, 2022. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-01029-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Gutmann DH
    : The diagnostic evaluation and multidisciplinary management of neurofibromatosis 1 and neurofibromatosis 2. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 278(1): 51, 1997. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1997.03550010065042
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Liu Z,
    2. Tong L,
    3. Chen L,
    4. Jiang Z,
    5. Zhou F,
    6. Zhang Q,
    7. Zhang X,
    8. Jin Y,
    9. Zhou H
    : Deep learning based brain tumor segmentation: a survey. Complex Intell Syst 9(1): 1001-1026, 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s40747-022-00815-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Jiang H,
    2. Diao Z,
    3. Yao YD
    : Deep learning techniques for tumor segmentation: a review. J Supercomput 78(2): 1807-1851, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s11227-021-03901-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Leithner D,
    2. Bernard-Davila B,
    3. Martinez DF,
    4. Horvat JV,
    5. Jochelson MS,
    6. Marino MA,
    7. Avendano D,
    8. Ochoa-Albiztegui RE,
    9. Sutton EJ,
    10. Morris EA,
    11. Thakur SB,
    12. Pinker K
    : Radiomic signatures derived from diffusion-weighted imaging for the assessment of breast cancer receptor status and molecular subtypes. Mol Imaging Biol 22(2): 453-461, 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s11307-019-01383-w
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mashayekhi R,
    2. Parekh VS,
    3. Faghih M,
    4. Singh VK,
    5. Jacobs MA,
    6. Zaheer A
    : Radiomic features of the pancreas on CT imaging accurately differentiate functional abdominal pain, recurrent acute pancreatitis, and chronic pancreatitis. Eur J Radiol 123: 108778, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108778
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Zhang X,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Zhang G,
    4. Qiu X,
    5. Tan W,
    6. Yin X,
    7. Liao L
    : Deep learning with radiomics for disease diagnosis and treatment: challenges and potential. Front Oncol 12: 773840, 2022. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.773840
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Gugel I,
    2. Aboutaha N,
    3. Pfluegler B,
    4. Ernemann U,
    5. Schuhmann MU,
    6. Tatagiba M,
    7. Grimm F
    : Comparison of 1D and 3D volume measurement techniques in NF2-associated vestibular schwannoma monitoring. Sci Rep 15(1): 2313, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-85386-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Li X,
    2. Morgan PS,
    3. Ashburner J,
    4. Smith J,
    5. Rorden C
    : The first step for neuroimaging data analysis: DICOM to NIfTI conversion. J Neurosci Methods 264: 47-56, 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2016.03.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Rorden C
    : dcm2niix (Source Code), 2023. Available at: https://github.com/rordenlab/dcm2niix/ [Last accessed on March 22, 2025]
  37. ↵
    1. Iglesias JE,
    2. Liu C-Y,
    3. Thompson PM,
    4. Tu Z
    : Robust brain extraction across datasets and comparison with publicly available methods. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 30(9): 1617-1634, 2011. DOI: 10.1109/tmi.2011.2138152
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Iglesias JE,
    2. Liu C-Y,
    3. Thompson PM,
    4. Tu Z
    : Robex (Source Code), 2013. Available at: https://www.nitrc.org/projects/robex/ [Last accessed on March 22, 2025]
  39. ↵
    1. Reinhold JC,
    2. Dewey BE,
    3. Carass A,
    4. Prince JL
    : Evaluating the Impact of Intensity Normalization on MR Image Synthesis. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 10949: 109493H, 2019. DOI: 10.1117/12.2513089
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    1. Jenkinson M,
    2. Smith S
    : A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Med Image Anal 5(2): 143-156, 2001. DOI: 10.1016/S1361-8415(01)00036-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Yushkevich PA,
    2. Piven J,
    3. Hazlett HC,
    4. Smith RG,
    5. Ho S,
    6. Gee JC,
    7. Gerig G
    : User-Guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 31(3): 1116-1128, 2006. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. van Griethuysen JJM,
    2. Fedorov A,
    3. Parmar C,
    4. Hosny A,
    5. Aucoin N,
    6. Narayan V,
    7. Beets-Tan RGH,
    8. Fillion-Robin JC,
    9. Pieper S,
    10. Aerts HJWL
    : Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res 77(21): e104-e107, 2017. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0339
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. van Griethuysen J,
    2. Fedorov A,
    3. Aucoin N,
    4. Fillion-Robin JC,
    5. Hosny A,
    6. Pieper S,
    7. Aerts H
    : PyRadiomics, 2023. Available at: https://pyradiomics.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ [Last accessed on March 22, 2025]
  44. ↵
    1. Korte JC,
    2. Cardenas C,
    3. Hardcastle N,
    4. Kron T,
    5. Wang J,
    6. Bahig H,
    7. Elgohari B,
    8. Ger R,
    9. Court L,
    10. Fuller CD,
    11. Ng SP
    : Radiomics feature stability of open-source software evaluated on apparent diffusion coefficient maps in head and neck cancer. Sci Rep 11(1): 17633, 2021. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96600-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. MR_2D_extraction.yaml
    . AIM-Harv Pyradiomics, 2025. Available at: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.stats.zscore.html [Last accessed on March 22, 2025]
  46. ↵
    1. Virtanen P,
    2. Gommers R,
    3. Oliphant TE,
    4. Haberland M,
    5. Reddy T,
    6. Cournapeau D,
    7. Burovski E,
    8. Peterson P,
    9. Weckesser W,
    10. Bright J,
    11. van der Walt SJ,
    12. Brett M,
    13. Wilson J,
    14. Millman KJ,
    15. Mayorov N,
    16. Nelson ARJ,
    17. Jones E,
    18. Kern R,
    19. Larson E,
    20. Carey CJ,
    21. Polat İ,
    22. Feng Y,
    23. Moore EW,
    24. VanderPlas J,
    25. Laxalde D,
    26. Perktold J,
    27. Cimrman R,
    28. Henriksen I,
    29. Quintero EA,
    30. Harris CR,
    31. Archibald AM,
    32. Ribeiro AH,
    33. Pedregosa F,
    34. van Mulbregt P, SciPy 1.0 Contributors
    : SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods 17(3): 261-272, 2020. DOI: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. The SciPy community
    : scipy.stats. Available at: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/stats.html [Last accessed on March 22, 2025]
  48. ↵
    1. Kursa MB
    : Boruta: Wrapper algorithm for all relevant feature selection, 2022. Available at: https://gitlab.com/mbq/Boruta/ [Last accessed on March 22, 2025]
  49. ↵
    1. Kursa MB,
    2. Rudnicki WR
    : Feature selection with the Boruta package. J Stat Softw 36(11): 1-13, 2010. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v036.i11
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Ho TK
    : Random decision forests. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, pp. 278-282 vol.1, 1995.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. ↵
    1. Escudero Sanchez L,
    2. Brown E,
    3. Rundo L,
    4. Ursprung S,
    5. Sala E,
    6. Bohndiek SE,
    7. Partarrieu IX
    : Photoacoustic imaging radiomics in patient-derived xenografts: a study on feature sensitivity and model discrimination. Sci Rep 12(1): 15142, 2022. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-19084-w
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Haralick RM,
    2. Shanmugam K,
    3. Dinstein IH
    : Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-3(6): 610-621, 1973. DOI: 10.1109/tsmc.1973.4309314
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. ↵
    1. Unser M
    : Texture classification and segmentation using wavelet frames. Trans Img Proc 4(11): 1549-1560, 1995. DOI: 10.1109/83.469936
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Jan A,
    2. Miller A,
    3. Wright P,
    4. Glennan D
    : Multilayer perceptron analysis of radiomics to predict local recurrence of lung cancer after radiotherapy. J Radiat Oncol Inform 12(1), 2022. DOI: 10.5166/jroi.12.1.1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. ↵
    1. Zhou B,
    2. Xu J,
    3. Tian Y,
    4. Yuan S,
    5. Li X
    : Correlation between radiomic features based on contrast-enhanced computed tomography images and Ki-67 proliferation index in lung cancer: A preliminary study. Thorac Cancer 9(10): 1235-1240, 2018. DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.12821
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Tofthagen C
    : Threats to validity in retrospective studies. J Adv Pract Oncol 3(3): 181-183, 2012. DOI: 10.6004/jadpro.2012.3.3.7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Talari K,
    2. Goyal M
    : Retrospective studies – utility and caveats. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 50(4): 398-402, 2020. DOI: 10.4997/jrcpe.2020.409
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. González Ballester MA,
    2. Zisserman AP,
    3. Brady M
    : Estimation of the partial volume effect in MRI. Med Image Anal 6(4): 389-405, 2002. DOI: 10.1016/S1361-8415(02)00061-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Yang HC,
    2. Wu CC,
    3. Lee CC,
    4. Huang HE,
    5. Lee WK,
    6. Chung WY,
    7. Wu HM,
    8. Guo WY,
    9. Wu YT,
    10. Lu CF
    : Prediction of pseudoprogression and long-term outcome of vestibular schwannoma after Gamma Knife radiosurgery based on preradiosurgical MR radiomics. Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 155: 123-130, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.10.041
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Langenhuizen PPJH,
    2. Sebregts SHP,
    3. Zinger S,
    4. Leenstra S,
    5. Verheul JB,
    6. de With PHN
    : Prediction of transient tumor enlargement using MRI tumor texture after radiosurgery on vestibular schwannoma. Med Phys 47(4): 1692-1701, 2020. DOI: 10.1002/mp.14042
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 45 (5)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 45, Issue 5
May 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Radiomics for Growth Prediction of Vestibular Schwannomas in Neurofibromatosis Type 2
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 5 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Radiomics for Growth Prediction of Vestibular Schwannomas in Neurofibromatosis Type 2
NINA BOE, VICTOR F. MAUTNER, REINHARD E. FRIEDRICH, SAID C. FARSCHTSCHI, LASSE DÜHRSEN, HANNO S. MEYER, JOHANNES A. KOEPPEN
Anticancer Research May 2025, 45 (5) 2137-2146; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.17588

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Radiomics for Growth Prediction of Vestibular Schwannomas in Neurofibromatosis Type 2
NINA BOE, VICTOR F. MAUTNER, REINHARD E. FRIEDRICH, SAID C. FARSCHTSCHI, LASSE DÜHRSEN, HANNO S. MEYER, JOHANNES A. KOEPPEN
Anticancer Research May 2025, 45 (5) 2137-2146; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.17588
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparison of BRCA2 Single Nucleotide Variants Between Japanese Patients With Familial Prostate Cancer, Sporadic Prostate Cancer, and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
  • Corrigendum
  • Sex-related Survival Differences in Patients With Glioblastoma – Results From a Retrospective Analysis
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • NF2
  • radiomics
  • vestibular schwannomas
  • growth prediction
  • Boruta analysis
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire