Henry C Kwok1, Charlotte Charbel1, Jayasree Chakraborty2, Natally Horvat3, Sofia Danilova1, Joao Miranda4, Natalie Gangai1, Iva Petkovska1. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. horvatn@mskcc.org. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this review paper is to summarize the current literature regarding inter- and intra-reader reliability of radiomics on rectal MRI. METHODS: Original studies examining treatment response prediction in patients with rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy using rectal MRI-based radiomics between January 2010 and December 2021 were identified via a PubMed/Medline search. Studies in which intra- and/or inter-reader reliability had been reported were included in this review. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were selected, with an average number of patients of 145 (range, 20-649). All included studies evaluated T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and/or diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences, while 3/13 (23%) also evaluated the contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) sequence. Most of the selected studies involved two readers (10/13, 77%), 6/13 (46%) studies used baseline MRI only, 1/13 (8%) study used restaging MRI only, and 6/13 (46%) used both. Segmentation was performed manually in 10/13 (77%) studies, and in a slight majority of studies (7/13, 54%), the entire tumor volume (3D VOI) was segmented, while 4/13 (31%) studies segmented the 2D ROI and 2/13 (15%) segmented both. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) on intra-reader agreement varied from 0.73 to 0.93. ICC to assess inter-reader varied from 0.60 to 0.99. Overall, features obtained from baseline rectal MRI, using 3D VOI and first-order features, had higher agreement. CONCLUSION: Based on our qualitative assessment of a small number of non-dedicated studies, there seems to be good reliability, particularly among low-order features extracted from the entire tumor volume using baseline MRI; however, direct evidence remains scarce. More targeted research in this area is required to quantitatively verify reliability, and before these novel radiomic techniques can be clinically adopted.
PURPOSE: The aim of this review paper is to summarize the current literature regarding inter- and intra-reader reliability of radiomics on rectal MRI. METHODS: Original studies examining treatment response prediction in patients with rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy using rectal MRI-based radiomics between January 2010 and December 2021 were identified via a PubMed/Medline search. Studies in which intra- and/or inter-reader reliability had been reported were included in this review. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were selected, with an average number of patients of 145 (range, 20-649). All included studies evaluated T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and/or diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences, while 3/13 (23%) also evaluated the contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) sequence. Most of the selected studies involved two readers (10/13, 77%), 6/13 (46%) studies used baseline MRI only, 1/13 (8%) study used restaging MRI only, and 6/13 (46%) used both. Segmentation was performed manually in 10/13 (77%) studies, and in a slight majority of studies (7/13, 54%), the entire tumor volume (3D VOI) was segmented, while 4/13 (31%) studies segmented the 2D ROI and 2/13 (15%) segmented both. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) on intra-reader agreement varied from 0.73 to 0.93. ICC to assess inter-reader varied from 0.60 to 0.99. Overall, features obtained from baseline rectal MRI, using 3D VOI and first-order features, had higher agreement. CONCLUSION: Based on our qualitative assessment of a small number of non-dedicated studies, there seems to be good reliability, particularly among low-order features extracted from the entire tumor volume using baseline MRI; however, direct evidence remains scarce. More targeted research in this area is required to quantitatively verify reliability, and before these novel radiomic techniques can be clinically adopted.
Authors: Monique Maas; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts; Guido Lammering; Patty J Nelemans; Sanne M E Engelen; Ronald M van Dam; Rob L H Jansen; Meindert Sosef; Jeroen W A Leijtens; Karel W E Hulsewé; Jeroen Buijsen; Geerard L Beets Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jose G Guillem; David B Chessin; Jinru Shia; Harvey G Moore; Madhu Mazumdar; Bianca Bernard; Philip B Paty; Leonard Saltz; Bruce D Minsky; Martin R Weiser; Larissa K F Temple; Alfred M Cohen; W Douglas Wong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Natally Horvat; Joao Miranda; Maria El Homsi; Jacob J Peoples; Niamh M Long; Amber L Simpson; Richard K G Do Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-11-26
Authors: Meghan G Lubner; Andrew D Smith; Kumar Sandrasegaran; Dushyant V Sahani; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Radiographics Date: 2017 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Andrew G Renehan; Lee Malcomson; Richard Emsley; Simon Gollins; Andrew Maw; Arthur Sun Myint; Paul S Rooney; Shabbir Susnerwala; Anthony Blower; Mark P Saunders; Malcolm S Wilson; Nigel Scott; Sarah T O'Dwyer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 41.316