Madhurima R Chetan1,2, Fergus V Gleeson3,4. 1. Department of Radiology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK. madhurima.chetan@doctors.net.uk. 2. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Room 6607, Level 6, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK. madhurima.chetan@doctors.net.uk. 3. Department of Radiology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK. 4. Department of Oncology, Old Road Campus Research Building, University of Oxford, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Radiomics is the extraction of quantitative data from medical imaging, which has the potential to characterise tumour phenotype. The radiomics approach has the capacity to construct predictive models for treatment response, essential for the pursuit of personalised medicine. In this literature review, we summarise the current status and evaluate the scientific and reporting quality of radiomics research in the prediction of treatment response in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed database. A total of 178 articles were screened for eligibility and 14 peer-reviewed articles were included. The radiomics quality score (RQS), a radiomics-specific quality metric emulating the TRIPOD guidelines, was used to assess scientific and reporting quality. RESULTS: Included studies reported several predictive markers including first-, second- and high-order features, such as kurtosis, grey-level uniformity and wavelet HLL mean respectively, as well as PET-based metabolic parameters. Quality assessment demonstrated a low median score of + 2.5 (range - 5 to + 9), mainly reflecting a lack of reproducibility and clinical evaluation. There was extensive heterogeneity between studies due to differences in patient population, cancer stage, treatment modality, follow-up timescales and radiomics workflow methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Radiomics research has not yet been translated into clinical use. Efforts towards standardisation and collaboration are needed to identify reproducible radiomic predictors of response. Promising radiomic models must be externally validated and their impact evaluated within the clinical pathway before they can be implemented as a clinical decision-making tool to facilitate personalised treatment for patients with NSCLC. KEY POINTS: • The included studies reported several promising radiomic markers of treatment response in lung cancer; however, there was a lack of reproducibility between studies. • Quality assessment using the radiomics quality score (RQS) demonstrated a low median total score of + 2.5 (range - 5 to + 9). • Future radiomics research should focus on implementation of standardised radiomics features and software, together with external validation in a prospective setting.
OBJECTIVES: Radiomics is the extraction of quantitative data from medical imaging, which has the potential to characterise tumour phenotype. The radiomics approach has the capacity to construct predictive models for treatment response, essential for the pursuit of personalised medicine. In this literature review, we summarise the current status and evaluate the scientific and reporting quality of radiomics research in the prediction of treatment response in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed database. A total of 178 articles were screened for eligibility and 14 peer-reviewed articles were included. The radiomics quality score (RQS), a radiomics-specific quality metric emulating the TRIPOD guidelines, was used to assess scientific and reporting quality. RESULTS: Included studies reported several predictive markers including first-, second- and high-order features, such as kurtosis, grey-level uniformity and wavelet HLL mean respectively, as well as PET-based metabolic parameters. Quality assessment demonstrated a low median score of + 2.5 (range - 5 to + 9), mainly reflecting a lack of reproducibility and clinical evaluation. There was extensive heterogeneity between studies due to differences in patient population, cancer stage, treatment modality, follow-up timescales and radiomics workflow methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Radiomics research has not yet been translated into clinical use. Efforts towards standardisation and collaboration are needed to identify reproducible radiomic predictors of response. Promising radiomic models must be externally validated and their impact evaluated within the clinical pathway before they can be implemented as a clinical decision-making tool to facilitate personalised treatment for patients with NSCLC. KEY POINTS: • The included studies reported several promising radiomic markers of treatment response in lung cancer; however, there was a lack of reproducibility between studies. • Quality assessment using the radiomics quality score (RQS) demonstrated a low median total score of + 2.5 (range - 5 to + 9). • Future radiomics research should focus on implementation of standardised radiomics features and software, together with external validation in a prospective setting.
Authors: Vishesh Agrawal; Thibaud P Coroller; Ying Hou; Stephanie W Lee; John L Romano; Elizabeth H Baldini; Aileen B Chen; David M Jackman; David Kozono; Scott J Swanson; Jon O Wee; Hugo J W L Aerts; Raymond H Mak Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Luke A Hunter; Yi Pei Chen; Lifei Zhang; Jason E Matney; Haesun Choi; Stephen F Kry; Mary K Martel; Francesco Stingo; Zhongxing Liao; Daniel Gomez; Jinzhong Yang; Laurence E Court Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Wolfgang A Weber; Volker Petersen; Burkhard Schmidt; Leishia Tyndale-Hines; Thomas Link; Christian Peschel; Markus Schwaiger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Gary J R Cook; Connie Yip; Muhammad Siddique; Vicky Goh; Sugama Chicklore; Arunabha Roy; Paul Marsden; Shahreen Ahmad; David Landau Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Giorgio Maria Masci; Fabio Ciccarelli; Fabrizio Ivo Mattei; Damiano Grasso; Fabio Accarpio; Carlo Catalano; Andrea Laghi; Paolo Sammartino; Franco Iafrate Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 3.469