Femke C R Staal1,2,3, Else A Aalbersberg3,4, Daphne van der Velden1, Erica A Wilthagen5, Margot E T Tesselaar3,6, Regina G H Beets-Tan1,2,7, Monique Maas8. 1. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229 ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. The Netherlands Cancer Institute/University Medical Center Utrecht Center for Neuroendocrine Tumors, ENETS Center of Excellence, Amsterdam/Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute Amsterdam, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Scientific Information Service, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, J. B. Winsløws Vej 19, 3, 5000, Odense, Denmark. 8. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.maas@nki.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The number of radiomics studies in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) is rapidly increasing. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the available evidence of radiomics for clinical outcome measures in GEP-NETs, to understand which applications hold the most promise and which areas lack evidence. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Wiley/Cochrane Library databases were searched and a forward and backward reference check of the identified studies was executed. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients with GEP-NETs and (2) radiomics analysis on CT, MRI or PET. Two reviewers independently agreed on eligibility and assessed methodological quality with the radiomics quality score (RQS) and extracted outcome data. RESULTS: In total, 1364 unique studies were identified and 45 were included for analysis. Most studies focused on GEP-NET grade and differential diagnosis of GEP-NETs from other neoplasms, while only a minority analysed treatment response or long-term outcomes. Several studies were able to predict tumour grade or to differentiate GEP-NETs from other lesions with a good performance (AUCs 0.74-0.96 and AUCs 0.80-0.99, respectively). Only one study developed a model to predict recurrence in pancreas NETs (AUC 0.77). The included studies reached a mean RQS of 18%. CONCLUSION: Although radiomics for GEP-NETs is still a relatively new area, some promising models have been developed. Future research should focus on developing robust models for clinically relevant aims such as prediction of response or long-term outcome in GEP-NET, since evidence for these aims is still scarce. KEY POINTS: • The majority of radiomics studies in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours is of low quality. • Most evidence for radiomics is available for the identification of tumour grade or differentiation of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours from other neoplasms. • Radiomics for the prediction of response or long-term outcome in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours warrants further research.
OBJECTIVE: The number of radiomics studies in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) is rapidly increasing. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the available evidence of radiomics for clinical outcome measures in GEP-NETs, to understand which applications hold the most promise and which areas lack evidence. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Wiley/Cochrane Library databases were searched and a forward and backward reference check of the identified studies was executed. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients with GEP-NETs and (2) radiomics analysis on CT, MRI or PET. Two reviewers independently agreed on eligibility and assessed methodological quality with the radiomics quality score (RQS) and extracted outcome data. RESULTS: In total, 1364 unique studies were identified and 45 were included for analysis. Most studies focused on GEP-NET grade and differential diagnosis of GEP-NETs from other neoplasms, while only a minority analysed treatment response or long-term outcomes. Several studies were able to predict tumour grade or to differentiate GEP-NETs from other lesions with a good performance (AUCs 0.74-0.96 and AUCs 0.80-0.99, respectively). Only one study developed a model to predict recurrence in pancreas NETs (AUC 0.77). The included studies reached a mean RQS of 18%. CONCLUSION: Although radiomics for GEP-NETs is still a relatively new area, some promising models have been developed. Future research should focus on developing robust models for clinically relevant aims such as prediction of response or long-term outcome in GEP-NET, since evidence for these aims is still scarce. KEY POINTS: • The majority of radiomics studies in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours is of low quality. • Most evidence for radiomics is available for the identification of tumour grade or differentiation of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours from other neoplasms. • Radiomics for the prediction of response or long-term outcome in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours warrants further research.
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: Virendra Kumar; Yuhua Gu; Satrajit Basu; Anders Berglund; Steven A Eschrich; Matthew B Schabath; Kenneth Forster; Hugo J W L Aerts; Andre Dekker; David Fenstermacher; Dmitry B Goldgof; Lawrence O Hall; Philippe Lambin; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: E J Limkin; R Sun; L Dercle; E I Zacharaki; C Robert; S Reuzé; A Schernberg; N Paragios; E Deutsch; C Ferté Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Kendall J Keck; Allen Choi; Jessica E Maxwell; Guiying Li; Thomas M O'Dorisio; Patrick Breheny; Andrew M Bellizzi; James R Howe Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Dirk Walter; Patrick N Harter; Florian Battke; Ria Winkelmann; Markus Schneider; Katharina Holzer; Christine Koch; Jörg Bojunga; Stefan Zeuzem; Martin Leo Hansmann; Jan Peveling-Oberhag; Oliver Waidmann Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Hugo J W L Aerts; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Chintan Parmar; Patrick Grossmann; Sara Carvalho; Sara Cavalho; Johan Bussink; René Monshouwer; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Derek Rietveld; Frank Hoebers; Michelle M Rietbergen; C René Leemans; Andre Dekker; John Quackenbush; Robert J Gillies; Philippe Lambin Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 14.919