Radiomics and artificial intelligence in malignant uterine body cancers: Protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Uterine body cancers (UBC) are represented by endometrial carcinoma (EC) and uterine sarcoma (USa). The clinical management of both is hindered by the complex classification of patients into risk classes. This problem could be simplified through the development of predictive models aimed at treatment tailoring based on tumor and patient characteristics. In this context, radiomics represents a method of extracting quantitative data from images in order to non-invasively acquire tumor biological and genetic information and to predict response to treatments and prognosis. Furthermore, artificial intelligence (AI) methods are an emerging field of translational research, with the aim of managing the amount of data provided by the various -omics, including radiomics, through the process of machine learning, in order to promote precision medicine.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this protocol for systematic review is to provide an overview of radiomics and AI studies on UBCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library to collect papers analyzing the impact of radiomics and AI on UBCs diagnosis, prognostic classification, and clinical outcomes. The PICO strategy will be used to formulate the research questions: What is the impact of radiomics and AI on UBCs on diagnosis, prognosis, and clinical results? How could radiomics or AI improve the differential diagnosis between sarcoma and fibroids? Does Radiomics or AI have a predictive role on UBCs response to treatments? Three authors will independently screen articles at title and abstract level based on the eligibility criteria. The risk of bias and quality of the cohort studies, case series, and case reports will be based on the QUADAS 2 quality assessment tools. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021253535.

Introduction

Uterine body cancers (UBC) are represented by endometrial carcinoma (EC) and uterine sarcoma (USa). EC are the most common female reproductive cancer in high-income countries with a growing incidence recorded in recent years [1]. USa are rare tumors and one of the deadliest gynecological cancers [2].

Clinical management of UBCs is complex and requires an accurate assessment of risk stratification factors in order to plan the correct therapeutic strategy. In UBCs the definition of risk categories is complicated by the stratification of tumors in different stages, different differentiation grades, different histological subtypes, and for EC, different biological subtypes based on molecular characteristics. Unfortunately, the evaluation of most of these parameters is operator-dependent, and therefore subject to possible inaccuracies. Furthermore, the need of introducing several parameters in the risk assessment, each of them associated with a certain risk of error, multiplies the probability of incorrect prognostic stratification.

For example, according to the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the main prognostic factors of EC are represented by disease stage, histological type, degree of differentiation, and vascular lymphatic invasion. However, the assessment of all these parameters is operator-dependent and poorly reproducible, even among experienced operators. All this leads to a non-negligible risk of incorrect classification of EC patients in relapse and death risk classes.

Moreover, additional risk stratification methods have become available over the last few years, based on the molecular features of TCGA [3, 4]. The TGCA published the first comprehensive genomic characterization of EC in 2013 and identified four subgroups: 1) ultramuted–POLEmut EC, harboring pathogenic mutations in the POLE gene, 2) hypermuted—Mismatch repair deficient (MMRd) EC showing a mismatch repair (MMR) defect or microsatellite instability (MSI), 3) copy-number low—mutated TP35 (p53abn) EC with mutations in TP53 and 4) copy-number high, a group with no specific molecular profile (NMSP).

However, this additional stratification system, while able to provide useful prognostic information, complicates the possibility of assessing the risk for the individual patient in daily clinical practice. In fact, an integrated assessment of traditional risk factors (stage, grading, lymphovascular infiltration) together with genetic risk factors is particularly complex and does not find clear indications from international guidelines. In this context, the introduction of predictive models able to manage all these data thanks to the use of AI methods, would be particularly useful.

Regarding USa, a common issue is the difficult differential diagnosis between USa and its benign counterpart (fibroid) [5]. Pathology examination, especially on the surgical specimen, is frequently the only method allowing a definitive clarification of diagnostic doubts. However, inappropriate resection techniques, such as intraoperative fragmentation of the tumor (morcellation), can lead to dramatically worse outcomes [6].

To solve these issues, standardized evaluation by AI algorithms able to overcome the human cognitive possibilities seems very attractive [7]. In this regard, radiomics and more generally AI-based analyses represent emerging translational research fields aimed at data mining from images and management of complex datasets to develop predictive models, respectively. Both of them, eventually combined with or including gene expression data, could support evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic decision, in order to allow personalized and precision medicine in this setting [8].

Based on this background, the purpose of this protocol for systematic review is to provide an overview of radiomics and AI studies on UBCs (EC and USa).

Methods

Study registration

The protocol was drafted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses project (PRISMA-P), S1 Checklist [9]. The protocol was submitted for registration in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021253535) [10]. The study started on 9th April 2021 and is planned to be completed by the end of October 2021. We expect to complete and publish the analysis by June 2022.

Patient and public involvement

No patient involved.

Bibliographic search

The systematic review will be carried out in accordance with the PRISMA Statement principles. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases will be systematically searched for original articles analyzing the role of AI/radiomics on UBCs diagnosis, prognosis, and clinical outcomes. Relevant studies will be selected using the Boolean combination of the following key terms: “((uterine neoplasms[Title/Abstract] OR uterine sarcomas[Title/Abstract] OR uterine fibroids[Title/Abstract] OR endometrial cancer[Title/Abstract]) OR ("Uterine Neoplasms"[Mesh])) AND ((radiomics[Title/Abstract]) OR (("Artificial Intelligence"[Majr]) OR (robotics[Title/Abstract] OR AI[Title/Abstract] OR expert system[Title/Abstract] OR expert systems[Title/Abstract] OR intelligent retrieval[Title/Abstract] OR knowledge engineering[Title/Abstract] OR machine learning[Title/Abstract] OR natural language processing[Title/Abstract]))) Filters: Female. Additionally, the reference list of reviews, meta-analyses, and all original studies will be hand-searched to acquire further relevant studies missed from the initial electronic search. The Mendeley bibliographical software will be used to manage references ensuring a comprehensive survey. The Population, Intervention/Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) [11] strategy will be used to frame the search questions: What is the impact of radiomics and AI on diagnosis, outcomes prediction and clinical results in UBSc? Can radiomics or other AI-based analyses improve differential diagnosis between USa and fibroid? Can AI-based predictive models and radiomics anticipate UBCs response to treatments?

Eligibility criteria

Eligible studies will include clinical studies, case reports, retrospective and prospective studies, case series, and clinical trials. The following studies will be excluded: preclinical studies, duplicate data, study protocols, systematic or narrative reviews, meta-analyses, letters-commentaries, editorials, surveys, guidelines and recommendations. Moreover, the following criteria for studies selection will be used, based on the PICO framework:

Participants

Studies including women affected by UBCs in which radiomics or AI were used to assess specific features to improve diagnosis, risk stratification and treatments.

Interventions

Analysis on clinical, radiological, and imaging data based on radiomics or AI in patients with UBCs.

Outcome measures

Impact of radiomics on diagnosis and clinical outcomes (tumor response, local control, distant metastases, pattern of failures, overall survival); evaluation of the used segmentation methods (manual, semi-automatic, or automatic); evaluation of predictive models, based on AI, including either radiomics or other clinical features.

Selection of studies

After duplicate publications removal, three authors will independently screen the retrieved papers based on their title/abstract/keywords to perform a preliminary selection based on the afore mentioned eligibility criteria. After this first screening, the remaining papers will be evaluated by examining the text in full. All differences arising at this stage will be solved by consensus between the researchers. In case of disagreement a fourth author will be involved in the final decision. Then, from the definitively selected papers data will be collected using a specific form including study design, number of patients, imaging type, AI or radiomics method, study objective, tumor histology and stage, validation group, segmentation type, previous therapies, clinical response evaluation criteria, and other prognostic factors. For the excluded papers, the reason for their removal from the analysis will be reported in the PRISMA flow chart (Fig 1). The final information will be verified by a lead author.

Fig 1

Shows the studies selection process.

Data collection and analysis

Data extraction and management

We referred to the research selection method in the Cochrane collaboration Network system Evaluator Manual V.5.0. Based on the PRISMA flowchart in Fig 1, three researchers will use the Mendeley reference management software to independently screen, cross-check, and verify the retrieved documents according to the review inclusion and exclusion criteria. In case of differences in the selection, the researchers will negotiate with a fourth author to achieve consensus. We will use Excel 2013 to extract relevant information (S1 Table), including:

Clinical research (title of the paper, first author name, year of publication, aim and design of the study, primary cancer, tumor stage, sample size, and median/mean age).

Validation cohort (present or not and independent or not from the discovery cohort).

Imaging techniques used in the study (ultrasonography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography).

Segmentation technique.

Outcome measures.

Data synthesis and analysis

Data from the selected papers will be tabulated based on the studies characteristics. Furthermore, reports will be analyzed separately based on the primary tumor (EC or USa), and then they will be further separated according to study characteristics and aims (diagnosis and/or outcomes prediction). Moreover, three authors will independently assess the methodological quality of the selected studies based on the QUADAS 2 quality assessment tools [12]. In case of conflicting evaluations, the final decision was taken by discussion with a fourth reviewer.

Based on the data extracted, the overall quality of the included studies will be critically evaluated based on the QUADAS-2 tool, assessing the four standard domains (patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing). Technical aspects of the included studies will be also analysed; in this context, type of techniques (MRI, CT or PET), type of segmentation adopted (Manual, Semi-automatic, Automatic) and how the predictive model was generated (i.e., using radiomics, machine learning, or deep learning. We are also particularly interested in analysing the main purpose of the study (i.e., for staging purpose, for lesion characterization or for survival prediction).

Discussion

The possibility of non-invasively extract biological and molecular information through images, using radiomics techniques, is obviously of great interest. In fact, the introduction of radiomics analyses in oncology shows growing interest and applications. The radiomics process can be divided into distinct steps such as image acquisition and reconstruction, image segmentation, features extraction and qualification, analysis, and model building [8]. Quantitative image features based on intensity, shape, size or volume, and texture offer information on tumor phenotype and microenvironment (or habitat) that is distinct from that provided by clinical reports, laboratory test results, and genomic or proteomic assays [13]. Furthermore, and more generally, AI is becoming a major player in integrating clinical, pathological, biological, molecular, genetic, and imaging data to develop predictive models [14].

The latter, requiring the use of machine learning or deep learning algorithms [15, 16], will be critical for oncological decision-making in a context where the amount of data available for each patient will be far beyond the human cognitive capacities.

In particular, AI-based analyses of radiological, histological and molecular features could improve the diagnostic and therapeutic pathway of UBCs. In fact, the availability of diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers is still an unmet clinical need in EC and USa [17, 18]. More specifically, integration of multi-omic data through AI systems could bypass the conventional clinical and molecular risk classifications (ESMO risk [19] and TCGA subclasses [3]) to allow a more personalized management of EC. In any case, even the simple use of traditional risk stratification systems requires radiological and pathological evaluations, both of which are subject to possible inaccuracies [20]. The latter can affect the reliability of tumor staging and prognosis prediction, with potential negative effects on clinical outcomes and possible legal disputes. In this context, the use of AI based systems has the theoretical potential to improve the reliability of individual diagnostic methods. For example, radiomics could be the key to solve the complex problem of differential diagnosis between uterine fibroid and USa.

In this scenario, a detailed review of available literature data is needed to summarize and analyze methods and results of AI applications, including radiomics, in the UBCs setting. In particular, the reliability of predictive models based on AI/radiomics will be evaluated based on the presence and type of patient populations used as validation cohorts (internal, external or prospective). Indeed, this point is critical in order to introduce these models in the clinical management of UBCs.

In conclusion, an increasing demand for precision and personalized therapies is required in oncology and particularly in the UBC setting. The aim of this protocol for systematic review is to evaluate all available information about applications of radiomics and AI-based models to improve diagnosis, staging, risk stratification, therapy and follow-up of UBCs.

PRISMA-P checklist.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Excel template used to extract relevant information.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

7 Jan 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sandro Pasquali, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please, carefully address reviewers' comments both in the reply letter and in the manuscript text.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The Authors describe the protocol they are using to finalize a review on the use of radiomics and artificial intelligence in uterine malignancies.

The project is certainly interesting and very topical but has some weaknesses; in particular, endometrial tumors and uterine sarcomas represent two extremely different pathologies. In the case of endometrial carcinomas the salient point becomes the molecular characterization of the tumor, while in uterine sarcomas the problem is the distinction from fibroids. Linking these two pathologies in the same review doesn't seem like a good idea.

Furthermore, the protocol presented does not show anything innovative compared to a common review, so it is not worthy of separate publication. It will be interesting to see the finished work of the Authors.

The work would also require a careful revision of the english language.

Reviewer #2: Provided as attachment.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-29302 Review .docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Feb 2022

Dear Editor, Thank you for sending me the reviewers' comments and I thank the reviewers for taking the time to make our protocol better. We will answer the questions point by point.

Major Issues

- Add the planned timeline for the study to meet publication criteria

We added the sentence “We expect to complete and publish the analysis by June 2022”

- Add how the data used for the proposed protocol will be made available to meet publication criteria (authors mention information will be extracted using Excel 2013 so that can be possibly be made available).

- Thanks for the comment. We included the excel sheet as supplementary table 2 (line 172)

Minor Issues

- Identification of studies through Scopus seems to be missing in Figure 1

Thanks for the comment, Figure 1 has been modified according to the suggestion

- It will be helpful to have a preliminary analysis as an exemplar of the use of this proposed protocol for a systematic review of radiomics and AI

We added a description of the planned analysis (line 190)

“Based on the data extracted, the overall quality of the included studies will be critically evaluated based on the “Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies” tool (QUADAS-2), assessing the four standard domains (patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing). Technical aspects of the included studies will be also analysed; in this context type of techniques (MRI, CT or PET), type of segmentation adopted and how the predictive model was generated (i.e using radiomics, machine learning (ML), or deep learning (DL). We are also particularly interested in analyse the main purpose of the study (i.e for staging purpose or for lesion characterization or for survival prediction).”

- Line 42 (mentions aim of this systematic review), 102 (mentions purpose of this systematic review), 218 (mentions aim of this systematic review) but it technically should be “aim/purpose of this protocol for systematic review” since the paper has not conducted a systematic review yet and is proposing a protocol for it.

Thank you, now Lines 42, 102, 218 have been changed as requested

- Add references to briefly talk about traditional radiomics (such as Gillies et al 2016 and others) which will link to AI radiomics

- Thank you for the comment we added the follows sentences about the radiomics use in line X page Y and the subsequent references are included line 194 page 9: “The radiomics process can be divided into distinct steps such as image acquisition and reconstruction, image segmentation, features extraction and qualification, analysis, and model building [8]. Quantitative image features based on intensity, shape, size or volume, and texture offer information on tumor phenotype and microenvironment (or habitat) that is distinct from that provided by clinical reports, laboratory test results, and genomic or proteomic assays”.

Other Comments

- The proposed protocol can be useful and be applied to perform systematic reviews for other types of cancers.

Thanks for the comment, we definitely hope that our protocol could be useful for other specialty and be cited by other authors

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Apr 2022

Radiomics and artificial intelligence in malignant uterine body cancers: protocol for a systematic review

PONE-D-21-29302R1

Dear Dr. Perrone,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sandro Pasquali, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

This study represents a  Registered Reports and therefore falls in the scope of PLOS ONE.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed my earlier comments and I am happy with them although I was expecting some data of papers that have been collected to be present in the excel sheet that was submitted as Supplementary Table 2 instead of just the template. I look forward to reading the systematic review by the authors following this protocol.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

19 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-29302R1

Radiomics and artificial intelligence in malignant uterine body cancers: protocol for a systematic review

Dear Dr. Perrone:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sandro Pasquali

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE