Objective: To report imaging protocol and scheduling variance in routine care of glioblastoma patients in order to demonstrate challenges of integrating deep-learning models in glioblastoma care pathways. Additionally, to understand the most common imaging studies and image contrasts to inform the development of potentially robust deep-learning models. Methods: MR imaging data were analysed from a random sample of five patients from the prospective cohort across five participating sites of the ZGBM consortium. Reported clinical and treatment data alongside DICOM header information were analysed to understand treatment pathway imaging schedules. Results: All sites perform all structural imaging at every stage in the pathway except for the presurgical study, where in some sites only contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging is performed. Diffusion MRI is the most common non-structural imaging type, performed at every site. Conclusion: The imaging protocol and scheduling varies across the UK, making it challenging to develop machine-learning models that could perform robustly at other centres. Structural imaging is performed most consistently across all centres. Advances in knowledge: Successful translation of deep-learning models will likely be based on structural post-treatment imaging unless there is significant effort made to standardise non-structural or peri-operative imaging protocols and schedules.

Aim: To review how machine learning (ML) is applied to imaging biomarkers in neuro-oncology, in particular for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment response monitoring. Materials and Methods: The PubMed and MEDLINE databases were searched for articles published before September 2018 using relevant search terms. The search strategy focused on articles applying ML to high-grade glioma biomarkers for treatment response monitoring, prognosis, and prediction. Results: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is typically used throughout the patient pathway because routine structural imaging provides detailed anatomical and pathological information and advanced techniques provide additional physiological detail. Using carefully chosen image features, ML is frequently used to allow accurate classification in a variety of scenarios. Rather than being chosen by human selection, ML also enables image features to be identified by an algorithm. Much research is applied to determining molecular profiles, histological tumour grade, and prognosis using MRI images acquired at the time that patients first present with a brain tumour. Differentiating a treatment response from a post-treatment-related effect using imaging is clinically important and also an area of active study (described here in one of two Special Issue publications dedicated to the application of ML in glioma imaging). Conclusion: Although pioneering, most of the evidence is of a low level, having been obtained retrospectively and in single centres. Studies applying ML to build neuro-oncology monitoring biomarker models have yet to show an overall advantage over those using traditional statistical methods. Development and validation of ML models applied to neuro-oncology require large, well-annotated datasets, and therefore multidisciplinary and multi-centre collaborations are necessary.