Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30535746›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2019

External validation of a combined PET and MRI radiomics model for prediction of recurrence in cervical cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy.

François Lucia, Dimitris Visvikis, Martin Vallières, Marie-Charlotte Desseroit, Omar Miranda, Philippe Robin, Pietro Andrea Bonaffini, Joanne Alfieri, Ingrid Masson, Augustin Mervoyer and 4 more

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Multimodality and temporal analysis of cervical cancer treatment response.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

François LuciaRadiation Oncology Department, University Hospital, Brest, France. francois.lucia@chu-brest.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7286-1350
Dimitris VisvikisLaTIM, INSERM, UMR 1101, University Brest, Brest, France.
Martin VallièresLaTIM, INSERM, UMR 1101, University Brest, Brest, France.
Marie-Charlotte DesseroitLaTIM, INSERM, UMR 1101, University Brest, Brest, France.
Omar MirandaRadiation Oncology Department, University Hospital, Brest, France.
Philippe RobinNuclear Medicine Department, University Hospital, Brest, France.
Pietro Andrea BonaffiniDepartment of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre (MUHC), Montreal, Canada.
Joanne AlfieriDepartment of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre (MUHC), Montreal, Canada.
Ingrid MassonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Nantes, France.
Augustin MervoyerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Nantes, France.
Caroline ReinholdDepartment of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre (MUHC), Montreal, Canada.
Olivier PradierRadiation Oncology Department, University Hospital, Brest, France.
Mathieu HattLaTIM, INSERM, UMR 1101, University Brest, Brest, France.
Ulrike SchickRadiation Oncology Department, University Hospital, Brest, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to validate previously developed radiomics models relying on just two radiomics features from

methodsPatients with LACC receiving chemoradiotherapy were enrolled in two French and one Canadian center. Pre-treatment imaging was performed for each patient. Multicentric harmonization of the two radiomics features was performed with the ComBat method. The models for DFS (using the feature from apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) MRI) and LRC (adding one PET feature to the DFS model) were tuned using one of the French cohorts (n = 112) and applied to the other French (n = 50) and the Canadian (n = 28) external validation cohorts.

resultsThe DFS model reached an accuracy of 90% (95% CI [79-98%]) (sensitivity 92-93%, specificity 87-89%) in both the French and the Canadian cohorts. The LRC model reached an accuracy of 98% (95% CI [90-99%]) (sensitivity 86%, specificity 100%) in the French cohort and 96% (95% CI [80-99%]) (sensitivity 83%, specificity 100%) in the Canadian cohort. Accuracy was significantly lower without ComBat harmonization (82-85% and 71-86% for DFS and LRC, respectively). The best prediction using standard clinical variables was 56-60% only.

conclusionsThe previously developed PET/MRI radiomics predictive models were successfully validated in two independent external cohorts. A proposed flowchart for improved management of patients based on these models should now be confirmed in future larger prospective studies.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultimodal ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiasDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMiddle AgedRecurrenceTreatment OutcomeFluorodeoxyglucose F18Cervical cancerChemoradiotherapyExternal validationPredictionRadiomics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.