Dataset Information

Radiomics in Renal Cell Carcinoma-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Radiomics may increase the diagnostic accuracy of medical imaging for localized and metastatic RCC (mRCC). A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Doing so, we comprehensively searched literature databases until May 2020. Studies investigating the diagnostic value of radiomics in differentiation of localized renal tumors and assessment of treatment response to ST in mRCC were included and assessed with respect to their quality using the radiomics quality score (RQS). A total of 113 out of 1098 identified studies met the criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis. Median RQS of all studies was 13.9% (5.0 points, IQR 0.25-7.0 points), and RQS increased over time. Thirty studies were included into the quantitative synthesis: For distinguishing angiomyolipoma, oncocytoma or unspecified benign tumors from RCC, the random effects model showed a log odds ratio (OR) of 2.89 (95%-CI 2.40-3.39, p < 0.001), 3.08 (95%-CI 2.09-4.06, p < 0.001) and 3.57 (95%-CI 2.69-4.45, p < 0.001), respectively. For the general discrimination of benign tumors from RCC log OR was 3.17 (95%-CI 2.73-3.62, p < 0.001). Inhomogeneity of the available studies assessing treatment response in mRCC prevented any meaningful meta-analysis. The application of radiomics seems promising for discrimination of renal tumor dignity. Shared data and open science may assist in improving reproducibility of future studies.

SUBMITTER: Muhlbauer J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8002585 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Radiomics in Renal Cell Carcinoma-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mühlbauer Julia J Egen Luisa L Kowalewski Karl-Friedrich KF Grilli Maurizio M Walach Margarete T MT Westhoff Niklas N Nuhn Philipp P Laqua Fabian C FC Baessler Bettina B Kriegmair Maximilian C MC

Cancers 20210317 6

Radiomics may increase the diagnostic accuracy of medical imaging for localized and metastatic RCC (mRCC). A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Doing so, we comprehensively searched literature databases until May 2020. Studies investigating the diagnostic value of radiomics in differentiation of localized renal tumors and assessment of treatment response to ST in mRCC were included and assessed with respect to their quality using the radiomics quality score (RQS). A total of 113 ...[more]

PMID: 33802699

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeDifferentiation of fat-poor angiomyolipoma (fp-AMLs) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is often not possible from just visual interpretation of conventional cross-sectional imaging, typically requiring biopsy or surgery for diagnostic confirmation. However, radiomics has the potential to characterize renal masses without the need for invasive procedures. Here, we conducted a systematic review on the accuracy of CT radiomics in distinguishing fp-AMLs from RCCs.MethodsWe conducted a search using PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published from January 2011-2022 that utilized CT radiomics to discriminate between fp-AMLs and RCCs. A random-effects model was applied for the meta-analysis according to the heterogeneity level. Furthermore, subgroup analyses (group 1: RCCs vs. fp-AML, and group 2: ccRCC vs. fp-AML), and quality assessment were also conducted to explore the possible effect of interstudy differences. To evaluate CT radiomics performance, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were assessed. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022311034).ResultsOur literature search identified 10 studies with 1456 lesions in 1437 patients. Pooled sensitivity was 0.779 [95% CI: 0.562-0.907] and 0.817 [95% CI: 0.663-0.910] for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pooled specificity was 0.933 [95% CI: 0.814-0.978]and 0.926 [95% CI: 0.854-0.964] for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Also, our findings showed higher sensitivity and specificity of 0.858 [95% CI: 0.742-0.927] and 0.886 [95% CI: 0.819-0.930] for detecting ccRCC from fp-AML in the unenhanced phase of CT scan as compared to the corticomedullary and nephrogenic phases of CT scan.ConclusionThis study suggested that radiomic features derived from CT has high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating RCCs vs. fp-AML, particularly in detecting ccRCCs vs. fp-AML. Also, an unenhanced CT scan showed the highest specificity and sensitivity as compared to contrast CT scan phases. Differentiating between fp-AML and RCC often is not possible without biopsy or surgery; radiomics has the potential to obviate these invasive procedures due to its high diagnostic accuracy.

Project description:Objectives(1) To assess the methodological quality of radiomics studies investigating histological subtypes, therapy response, and survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and (2) to determine the risk of bias in these radiomics studies.MethodsIn this systematic review, literature published since 2000 on radiomics in RCC was included and assessed for methodological quality using the Radiomics Quality Score. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool and a meta-analysis of radiomics studies focusing on differentiating between angiomyolipoma without visible fat and RCC was performed.ResultsFifty-seven studies investigating the use of radiomics in renal cancer were identified, including 4590 patients in total. The average Radiomics Quality Score was 3.41 (9.4% of total) with good inter-rater agreement (ICC 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.98). Three studies validated results with an independent dataset, one used a publically available validation dataset. None of the studies shared the code, images, or regions of interest. The meta-analysis showed moderate heterogeneity among the included studies and an odds ratio of 6.24 (95% CI 4.27-9.12; p < 0.001) for the differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from RCC.ConclusionsRadiomics algorithms show promise for answering clinical questions where subjective interpretation is challenging or not established. However, the generalizability of findings to prospective cohorts needs to be demonstrated in future trials for progression towards clinical translation. Improved sharing of methods including code and images could facilitate independent validation of radiomics signatures.Key points• Studies achieved an average Radiomics Quality Score of 10.8%. Common reasons for low Radiomics Quality Scores were unvalidated results, retrospective study design, absence of open science, and insufficient control for multiple comparisons. • A previous training phase allowed reaching almost perfect inter-rater agreement in the application of the Radiomics Quality Score. • Meta-analysis of radiomics studies distinguishing angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma show moderate diagnostic odds ratios of 6.24 and moderate methodological diversity.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to systematically review the studies on radiomics models in distinguishing between lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) and lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC) and evaluate the classification performance of radiomics models using images from various imaging techniques.Materials and methodsPubMed, Embase and Web of Science Core Collection were utilized to search for radiomics studies that differentiate between LUAD and LUSC. The assessment of the quality of studies included utilized the improved Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and Radiomics Quality Score (RQS). Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the classification performance of radiomics models using various imaging techniques.ResultsThe qualitative analysis included 40 studies, while the quantitative synthesis included 21 studies. Median RQS for 40 studies was 12 (range -5~19). Sixteen studies were deemed to have a low risk of bias and low concerns regarding applicability. The radiomics model based on CT images had a pooled sensitivity of 0.78 (95%CI: 0.71~0.83), specificity of 0.85 (95%CI:0.73~0.92), and the area under summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC-AUC) of 0.86 (95%CI:0.82~0.89). As for PET images, the pooled sensitivity was 0.80 (95%CI: 0.61~0.91), specificity was 0.77 (95%CI: 0.60~0.88), and the SROC-AUC was 0.85 (95%CI: 0.82~0.88). PET/CT images had a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (95%CI: 0.72~0.94), specificity of 0.88 (95%CI: 0.80~0.93), and an SROC-AUC of 0.93 (95%CI: 0.91~0.95). MRI images had a pooled sensitivity of 0.73 (95%CI: 0.61~0.82), specificity of 0.80 (95%CI: 0.65~0.90), and an SROC-AUC of 0.79 (95%CI: 0.75~0.82).ConclusionRadiomics models demonstrate potential in distinguishing between LUAD and LUSC. Nevertheless, it is crucial to conduct a well-designed and powered prospective radiomics studies to establish their credibility in clinical application.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=412851, identifier CRD42023412851.

Dataset Information

Radiomics in Renal Cell Carcinoma-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Radiomics in Renal Cell Carcinoma-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets