Amrita Guha1,2, Steve Connor3, Mustafa Anjari3, Harish Naik4, Musib Siddiqui5, Gary Cook3, Vicky Goh3. 1. School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 2. Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. 3. Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. 4. Grant Medical college and JJ Group of hospitals, Mumbai, India. 5. School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The recent increase in publications on radiomic analysis as means to produce diagnostic and predictive biomarkers in head and neck cancers (HNCC) reveal complicated and often conflicting results. The objective of this paper is to systematically review the published data, and evaluate the current level of evidence accumulated that would determine clinical application. METHODS: Data sources: Articles in the English language available on the Ovid-MEDLINE and Embase databases were used for the literature search. Study selection:Studies which evaluated the role of radiomics as a predictive or prognostic tool for response assessment in HNCC were included in this review.Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The authors set-out to perform a meta-analysis, however given the small number of studies retrieved that presented adequate data, combined with excessive methodological heterogeneity, we could only perform a structured descriptive systematic review summarizing the key findings. Independent extraction of articles was performed by two authors using predefined data fields and any disagreement was resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Though most papers concluded that radiomics is an effective predictive and prognostic biomarker in the management of HNCC, significant heterogeneity exists in the study methodology and statistical modelling; thus precluding accurate mathematical comparison or the ability to make clear recommendations going forwards. Moreover, most studies have not been validated and the reproducibility of their results will be a challenge. CONCLUSION: Until robust external validation studies on the reproducibility and accuracy of radiomic analysis methods on HNCC are carried out, the current level of evidence remains low, with the authors advising caution against hasty implementation of these tools in the multidisciplinary clinic. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This review is the first attempt to critically analyze the merits and demerits of currently published literature on tumour heterogeneity studies in HNCC, and identifies specific loop holes that need to be addressed by research groups, for a meaningful clinical translation of this potential biomarker.
OBJECTIVE: The recent increase in publications on radiomic analysis as means to produce diagnostic and predictive biomarkers in head and neck cancers (HNCC) reveal complicated and often conflicting results. The objective of this paper is to systematically review the published data, and evaluate the current level of evidence accumulated that would determine clinical application. METHODS: Data sources: Articles in the English language available on the Ovid-MEDLINE and Embase databases were used for the literature search. Study selection:Studies which evaluated the role of radiomics as a predictive or prognostic tool for response assessment in HNCC were included in this review.Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The authors set-out to perform a meta-analysis, however given the small number of studies retrieved that presented adequate data, combined with excessive methodological heterogeneity, we could only perform a structured descriptive systematic review summarizing the key findings. Independent extraction of articles was performed by two authors using predefined data fields and any disagreement was resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Though most papers concluded that radiomics is an effective predictive and prognostic biomarker in the management of HNCC, significant heterogeneity exists in the study methodology and statistical modelling; thus precluding accurate mathematical comparison or the ability to make clear recommendations going forwards. Moreover, most studies have not been validated and the reproducibility of their results will be a challenge. CONCLUSION: Until robust external validation studies on the reproducibility and accuracy of radiomic analysis methods on HNCC are carried out, the current level of evidence remains low, with the authors advising caution against hasty implementation of these tools in the multidisciplinary clinic. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This review is the first attempt to critically analyze the merits and demerits of currently published literature on tumour heterogeneity studies in HNCC, and identifies specific loop holes that need to be addressed by research groups, for a meaningful clinical translation of this potential biomarker.
Authors: Marta Bogowicz; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Stephanie Tanadini-Lang; Oliver Riesterer; Martin Pruschy; Gabriela Studer; Jan Unkelbach; Matthias Guckenberger; Ender Konukoglu; Philippe Lambin Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Dan Ou; Pierre Blanchard; Silvia Rosellini; Antonin Levy; France Nguyen; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Ingrid Garberis; Philippe Gorphe; François Bidault; Charles Ferté; Charlotte Robert; Odile Casiraghi; Jean-Yves Scoazec; Philippe Lambin; Stephane Temam; Eric Deutsch; Yungan Tao Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Ralph T H Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Frank J P Hoebers; Hugo J W L Aerts; Wouter J C van Elmpt; Shao Hui Huang; Biu Chan; John N Waldron; Brian O'sullivan; Philippe Lambin Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-01
Authors: Remco de Bree; Gregory T Wolf; Bart de Keizer; Iain J Nixon; Dana M Hartl; Arlene A Forastiere; Missak Haigentz; Alessandra Rinaldo; Juan P Rodrigo; Nabil F Saba; Carlos Suárez; Jan B Vermorken; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Head Neck Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Niels W Schurink; Simon R van Kranen; Maaike Berbee; Wouter van Elmpt; Frans C H Bakers; Sander Roberti; Joost J M van Griethuysen; Lisa A Min; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 5.315