Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32809167›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2021

Radiomics in predicting treatment response in non-small-cell lung cancer: current status, challenges and future perspectives.

Madhurima R Chetan, Fergus V Gleeson

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
139citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
19.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

139 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 273 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

79 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Madhurima R ChetanDepartment of Radiology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK. madhurima.chetan@doctors.net.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6868-4969
Fergus V GleesonDepartment of Radiology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK.
Churchill Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRadiomics is the extraction of quantitative data from medical imaging, which has the potential to characterise tumour phenotype. The radiomics approach has the capacity to construct predictive models for treatment response, essential for the pursuit of personalised medicine. In this literature review, we summarise the current status and evaluate the scientific and reporting quality of radiomics research in the prediction of treatment response in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed database. A total of 178 articles were screened for eligibility and 14 peer-reviewed articles were included. The radiomics quality score (RQS), a radiomics-specific quality metric emulating the TRIPOD guidelines, was used to assess scientific and reporting quality.

resultsIncluded studies reported several predictive markers including first-, second- and high-order features, such as kurtosis, grey-level uniformity and wavelet HLL mean respectively, as well as PET-based metabolic parameters. Quality assessment demonstrated a low median score of + 2.5 (range - 5 to + 9), mainly reflecting a lack of reproducibility and clinical evaluation. There was extensive heterogeneity between studies due to differences in patient population, cancer stage, treatment modality, follow-up timescales and radiomics workflow methodology.

conclusionsRadiomics research has not yet been translated into clinical use. Efforts towards standardisation and collaboration are needed to identify reproducible radiomic predictors of response. Promising radiomic models must be externally validated and their impact evaluated within the clinical pathway before they can be implemented as a clinical decision-making tool to facilitate personalised treatment for patients with NSCLC. KEY POINTS: • The included studies reported several promising radiomic markers of treatment response in lung cancer; however, there was a lack of reproducibility between studies. • Quality assessment using the radiomics quality score (RQS) demonstrated a low median total score of + 2.5 (range - 5 to + 9). • Future radiomics research should focus on implementation of standardised radiomics features and software, together with external validation in a prospective setting.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsDiagnostic ImagingHumansProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkersCarcinoma, non-small-cell lungPositron emission tomography computed tomographyPrecision medicineTomography, X-ray computed

Identifiers

PMID32809167
PMCPMC7813733
OpenAlexW3064574647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.