Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31453720›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2019

Comparison of radiomics tools for image analyses and clinical prediction in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Zhong-Guo Liang, Hong Qi Tan, Fan Zhang, Lloyd Kuan Rui Tan, Li Lin, Jacopo Lenkowicz, Haitao Wang, Enya Hui Wen Ong, Grace Kusumawidjaja, Jun Hao Phua and 14 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. [Research progress in CT-based radiomics constructing hypopharyngeal cancer and multisystem tumor prediction model].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Radiomics in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Comparison of three freeware software packages forJapanese journal of radiology · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

24 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Zhong-Guo LiangDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Hong Qi TanDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Fan ZhangDivision of Medical Sciences, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Lloyd Kuan Rui TanDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Li LinDivision of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China.
Jacopo LenkowiczUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Haitao WangDivision of Medical Sciences, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Enya Hui Wen OngDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Grace KusumawidjajaDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Jun Hao PhuaDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Soon Ann GanDivision of Cancer Informatics, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Sze Yarn SinDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Yan Yee NgDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Terence Wee TanDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Yoke Lim SoongDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Kam Weng FongDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Sung Yong ParkDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Khee-Chee SooDivision of Medical Sciences, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Joseph Tien WeeDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Xiao-Dong ZhuDivision of Radiation Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, Guangxi, P.R. China.
Vincenzo ValentiniUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Luca BoldriniUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Ying SunDivision of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China.
Melvin Lee ChuaDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
National Cancer Centre Singapore · SGAdvanced Radiation Therapy (United States) · USDuke-NUS Medical School · SGGuangxi Medical University · CNSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRadiomics pipelines have been developed to extract novel information from radiological images, which may help in phenotypic profiling of tumours that would correlate to prognosis. Here, we compared two publicly available pipelines for radiomics analyses on head and neck CT and MRI in nasopharynx cancer (NPC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: 100 biopsy-proven NPC cases stratified by T- and N-categories were enrolled in this study. Two radiomics pipeline, Moddicom (v. 0.51) and Pyradiomics (v. 2.1.2) were used to extract radiomics features of CT and MRI. Segmentation of primary gross tumour volume was performed using Velocity v. 4.0 by consensus agreement between three radiation oncologists. Intraclass correlation between common features of the two pipelines was analysed by Spearman's rank correlation. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering was used to determine association between radiomics features and clinical parameters.

resultsWe observed a high proportion of correlated features in the CT data set, but not for MRI; 76.1% (51 of 67 common between Moddicom and Pyradiomics) of CT features and 28.6% (20 of 70 common) of MRI features were significantly correlated. Of these, 100% were shape-related for both CT and MRI, 100 and 23.5% were first-order-related, 61.9 and 19.0% were texture-related, respectively. This interpipeline heterogeneity affected the downstream clustering with known prognostic clinical parameters of cTN-status and GTVp. Nonetheless, shape features were the most reproducible predictors of clinical parameters among the different radiomics modules.

conclusionHere, we highlighted significant heterogeneity between two publicly available radiomics pipelines that could affect the downstream association with prognostic clinical factors in NPC. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The present study emphasized the broader importance of selecting stable radiomics features for disease phenotyping, and it is necessary prior to any investigation of multicentre imaging datasets to validate the stability of CT-related radiomics features for clinical prognostication.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMultidetector Computed TomographyAdultAlgorithmsDatasets as TopicFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasopharyngeal CarcinomaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsPhenotypePrognosisRadiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated

Identifiers

PMID31453720
PMCPMC6774600
OpenAlexW2970813332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.