Elies Fuster-Garcia

Dr. Elies Fuster-Garcia

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

21Years (2006-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
7 November 2008 in Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JGJuan Miguel Garcia-Gomez
Juan Miguel Garcia-Gomez
JLJan Luts
Jan Luts
Margarida Julià-SapéMargarida Julià-Sapé
Margarida Julià-Sapé
PKPatrick Krooshof
Patrick Krooshof
STSalvador Tortajada
Salvador Tortajada
MRMontserrat Robles
Montserrat Robles
Automatic brain tumor classification by MRS has been under development for more than a decade. Nonetheless, to our knowledge, there are no published evaluations of predictive models with unseen cases that are subsequently acquired in different centers. The multicenter eTUMOUR project (2004–2009), which builds upon previous expertise from the INTERPRET project (2000–2002) has allowed such an evaluation to take place. A total of 253 pairwise classifiers for glioblastoma, meningioma, metastasis, and low-grade glial diagnosis were inferred based on 211 SV short TE INTERPRET MR spectra obtained at 1.5 T (PRESS or STEAM, 20–32 ms) and automatically pre-processed. Afterwards, the classifiers were tested with 97 spectra, which were subsequently compiled during eTUMOUR. In our results based on subsequently acquired spectra, accuracies of around 90% were achieved for most of the pairwise discrimination problems. The exception was for the glioblastoma versus metastasis discrimination, which was below 78%. A more clear definition of metastases may be obtained by other approaches, such as MRSI + MRI. The prediction of the tumor type of in-vivo MRS is possible using classifiers developed from previously acquired data, in different hospitals with different instrumentation under the same acquisition protocols. This methodology may find application for assisting in the diagnosis of new brain tumor cases and for the quality control of multicenter MRS databases.

15 May 2015 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JJJavier Juan-Albarracín
Javier Juan-Albarracín
EFElies Fuster-Garcia
Elies Fuster-Garcia
JMJosé V Manjón
José V Manjón
MRMontserrat Robles
Montserrat Robles
FAF Aparici
F Aparici
JGJuan Miguel Garcia-Gomez
Juan Miguel Garcia-Gomez
Automatic brain tumour segmentation has become a key component for the future of brain tumour treatment. Currently, most of brain tumour segmentation approaches arise from the supervised learning standpoint, which requires a labelled training dataset from which to infer the models of the classes. The performance of these models is directly determined by the size and quality of the training corpus, whose retrieval becomes a tedious and time-consuming task. On the other hand, unsupervised approaches avoid these limitations but often do not reach comparable results than the supervised methods. In this sense, we propose an automated unsupervised method for brain tumour segmentation based on anatomical Magnetic Resonance (MR) images. Four unsupervised classification algorithms, grouped by their structured or non-structured condition, were evaluated within our pipeline. Considering the non-structured algorithms, we evaluated K-means, Fuzzy K-means and Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), whereas as structured classification algorithms we evaluated Gaussian Hidden Markov Random Field (GHMRF). An automated postprocess based on a statistical approach supported by tissue probability maps is proposed to automatically identify the tumour classes after the segmentations. We evaluated our brain tumour segmentation method with the public BRAin Tumor Segmentation (BRATS) 2013 Test and Leaderboard datasets. Our approach based on the GMM model improves the results obtained by most of the supervised methods evaluated with the Leaderboard set and reaches the second position in the ranking. Our variant based on the GHMRF achieves the first position in the Test ranking of the unsupervised approaches and the seventh position in the general Test ranking, which confirms the method as a viable alternative for brain tumour segmentation.

1 June 2018 in Radiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JJJavier Juan-Albarracín
Javier Juan-Albarracín
EFElies Fuster-Garcia
Elies Fuster-Garcia
APAlexandre Pérez-Girbés
Alexandre Pérez-Girbés
FAFernando Aparici-Robles
Fernando Aparici-Robles
AAAngel Alberich-Bayarri
Angel Alberich-Bayarri
JGJuan Miguel Garcia-Gomez
Juan Miguel Garcia-Gomez
Preoperative vascular heterogeneity of glioblastoma characterized by means of a hemodynamic tissue signature method allows prediction of overall survival in patients undergoing standard-of-care tre... Purpose To determine if preoperative vascular heterogeneity of glioblastoma is predictive of overall survival of patients undergoing standard-of-care treatment by using an unsupervised multiparamet...

3 March 2023 in Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
LHLydiane Hirschler
Lydiane Hirschler
Nico SollmannNico Sollmann
Nico Sollmann
BSBárbara Schmitz‐Abecassis
Bárbara Schmitz‐Abecassis
JPJoana Pinto
Joana Pinto
FAFatemehsadat Arzanforoosh
Fatemehsadat Arzanforoosh
GHGilbert Hangel
Gilbert Hangel
Preoperative clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols for gliomas, brain tumors with dismal outcomes due to their infiltrative properties, still rely on conventional structural MRI, which does not deliver information on tumor genotype and is limited in the delineation of diffuse gliomas. The GliMR COST action wants to raise awareness about the state of the art of advanced MRI techniques in gliomas and their possible clinical translation or lack thereof. This review describes current methods, limits, and applications of advanced MRI for the preoperative assessment of glioma, summarizing the level of clinical validation of different techniques. In this first part, we discuss dynamic susceptibility contrast and dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI, arterial spin labeling, diffusion‐weighted MRI, vessel imaging, and magnetic resonance fingerprinting. The second part of this review addresses magnetic resonance spectroscopy, chemical exchange saturation transfer, susceptibility‐weighted imaging, MRI‐PET, MR elastography, and MR‐based radiomics applications.Evidence Level: 3Technical Efficacy: Stage 2

1 February 2013 in European Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JVJavier Vicente
Javier Vicente
EFElies Fuster-Garcia
Elies Fuster-Garcia
STSalvador Tortajada
Salvador Tortajada
JGJuan Miguel Garcia-Gomez
Juan Miguel Garcia-Gomez
NDNigel Davies
Nigel Davies
APAndrew Peet
Andrew Peet

13 March 2023 in Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
GHGilbert Hangel
Gilbert Hangel
BSBárbara Schmitz‐Abecassis
Bárbara Schmitz‐Abecassis
Nico SollmannNico Sollmann
Nico Sollmann
JPJoana Pinto
Joana Pinto
FAFatemehsadat Arzanforoosh
Fatemehsadat Arzanforoosh
KEKyrre E. Emblem
Kyrre E. Emblem
Preoperative clinical MRI protocols for gliomas, brain tumors with dismal outcomes due to their infiltrative properties, still rely on conventional structural MRI, which does not deliver information on tumor genotype and is limited in the delineation of diffuse gliomas. The GliMR COST action wants to raise awareness about the state of the art of advanced MRI techniques in gliomas and their possible clinical translation. This review describes current methods, limits, and applications of advanced MRI for the preoperative assessment of glioma, summarizing the level of clinical validation of different techniques. In this second part, we review magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST), susceptibility‐weighted imaging (SWI), MRI‐PET, MR elastography (MRE), and MR‐based radiomics applications. The first part of this review addresses dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) and dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) MRI, arterial spin labeling (ASL), diffusion‐weighted MRI, vessel imaging, and magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF).Evidence Level: 3.Technical Efficacy: Stage 2.