Qiuying Chen1,2, Lu Zhang1,2, Shuyi Liu1,2, Jingjing You1,2, Luyan Chen1,2, Zhe Jin1,2, Shuixing Zhang3,4, Bin Zhang5,6. 1. Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jinan University, No.613, Huangpu West Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510627, Guangdong, China. 2. Graduate College, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 3. Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jinan University, No.613, Huangpu West Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510627, Guangdong, China. shui7515@126.com. 4. Graduate College, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. shui7515@126.com. 5. Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jinan University, No.613, Huangpu West Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510627, Guangdong, China. xld_Jane_Eyre@126.com. 6. Graduate College, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. xld_Jane_Eyre@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Radiomic features derived from routine medical images show great potential for personalized medicine in gastric cancer (GC). We aimed to evaluate the current status and quality of radiomic research as well as its potential for identifying biomarkers to predict therapy response and prognosis in patients with GC. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the PubMed and Embase databases for articles published from inception through July 10, 2021. The phase classification criteria for image mining studies and the radiomics quality scoring (RQS) tool were applied to evaluate scientific and reporting quality. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies consisting of 10,432 patients were included. 96% of studies extracted radiomic features from CT images. Association between radiomic signature and therapy response was evaluated in seven (28%) studies; association with survival was evaluated in 17 (68%) studies; one (4%) study analyzed both. All results of the included studies showed significant associations. Based on the phase classification criteria for image mining studies, 18 (72%) studies were classified as phase II, with two, four, and one studies as discovery science, phase 0 and phase I, respectively. The median RQS score for the radiomic studies was 44.4% (range, 0 to 55.6%). There was extensive heterogeneity in the study population, tumor stage, treatment protocol, and radiomic workflow amongst the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although radiomic research in GC is highly heterogeneous and of relatively low quality, it holds promise for predicting therapy response and prognosis. Efforts towards standardization and collaboration are needed to utilize radiomics for clinical application. KEY POINTS: • Radiomics application of gastric cancer is increasingly being reported, particularly in predicting therapy response and survival. • Although radiomics research in gastric cancer is highly heterogeneous and relatively low quality, it holds promise for predicting clinical outcomes. • Standardized imaging protocols and radiomic workflow are needed to facilitate radiomics into clinical use.
OBJECTIVES: Radiomic features derived from routine medical images show great potential for personalized medicine in gastric cancer (GC). We aimed to evaluate the current status and quality of radiomic research as well as its potential for identifying biomarkers to predict therapy response and prognosis in patients with GC. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the PubMed and Embase databases for articles published from inception through July 10, 2021. The phase classification criteria for image mining studies and the radiomics quality scoring (RQS) tool were applied to evaluate scientific and reporting quality. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies consisting of 10,432 patients were included. 96% of studies extracted radiomic features from CT images. Association between radiomic signature and therapy response was evaluated in seven (28%) studies; association with survival was evaluated in 17 (68%) studies; one (4%) study analyzed both. All results of the included studies showed significant associations. Based on the phase classification criteria for image mining studies, 18 (72%) studies were classified as phase II, with two, four, and one studies as discovery science, phase 0 and phase I, respectively. The median RQS score for the radiomic studies was 44.4% (range, 0 to 55.6%). There was extensive heterogeneity in the study population, tumor stage, treatment protocol, and radiomic workflow amongst the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although radiomic research in GC is highly heterogeneous and of relatively low quality, it holds promise for predicting therapy response and prognosis. Efforts towards standardization and collaboration are needed to utilize radiomics for clinical application. KEY POINTS: • Radiomics application of gastric cancer is increasingly being reported, particularly in predicting therapy response and survival. • Although radiomics research in gastric cancer is highly heterogeneous and relatively low quality, it holds promise for predicting clinical outcomes. • Standardized imaging protocols and radiomic workflow are needed to facilitate radiomics into clinical use.
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Timo M Deist; Jurgen Peerlings; Evelyn E C de Jong; Janita van Timmeren; Sebastian Sanduleanu; Ruben T H M Larue; Aniek J G Even; Arthur Jochems; Yvonka van Wijk; Henry Woodruff; Johan van Soest; Tim Lustberg; Erik Roelofs; Wouter van Elmpt; Andre Dekker; Felix M Mottaghy; Joachim E Wildberger; Sean Walsh Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Sheng-Xiang Rao; Doenja Mj Lambregts; Roald S Schnerr; Wenzel van Ommen; Thiemo Ja van Nijnatten; Milou H Martens; Luc A Heijnen; Walter H Backes; Cornelis Verhoef; Meng-Su Zeng; Geerard L Beets; Regina Gh Beets-Tan Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Sofia Antunes; Annalaura Salerno; Alessandro Ambrosi; Paolo Marra; Roberto Nicoletti; Elena Orsenigo; Damiano Chiari; Luca Albarello; Carlo Staudacher; Antonio Esposito; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Paolo Marra; Alessandro Ambrosi; Annalaura Salerno; Sofia Antunes; Damiano Chiari; Elena Orsenigo; Antonio Esposito; Elena Mazza; Luca Albarello; Roberto Nicoletti; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Ralph Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Patrick Granton; Catharina M L Zegers; Robert Gillies; Ronald Boellard; André Dekker; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Laurent Dercle; Lin Lu; Lawrence H Schwartz; Min Qian; Sabine Tejpar; Peter Eggleton; Binsheng Zhao; Hubert Piessevaux Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Taiga Wakabayashi; Farid Ouhmich; Cristians Gonzalez-Cabrera; Emanuele Felli; Antonio Saviano; Vincent Agnus; Peter Savadjiev; Thomas F Baumert; Patrick Pessaux; Jacques Marescaux; Benoit Gallix Journal: Hepatol Int Date: 2019-08-31 Impact factor: 9.029
Authors: Matthew J Page; Joanne E McKenzie; Patrick M Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C Hoffmann; Cynthia D Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Elie A Akl; Sue E Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Manoj M Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A McGuinness; Lesley A Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C Tricco; Vivian A Welch; Penny Whiting; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 11.069