Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33136182›Full record

SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2021

CT-based radiomics for differentiating renal tumours: a systematic review.

Abhishta Bhandari, Muhammad Ibrahim, Chinmay Sharma, Rebecca Liong, Sonja Gustafson, Marita Prior

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Abhishta BhandariTownsville University Hospital, 100 Angus Smith Drive, Douglas, QLD, 4814, Australia. Abhishta.bhandari@my.jcu.edu.au.
Muhammad IbrahimTownsville University Hospital, 100 Angus Smith Drive, Douglas, QLD, 4814, Australia.
Chinmay SharmaTownsville University Hospital, 100 Angus Smith Drive, Douglas, QLD, 4814, Australia.
Rebecca LiongDepartment of Medical Imaging Research Office, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Sonja GustafsonDepartment of Medical Imaging Research Office, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Marita PriorDepartment of Medical Imaging Research Office, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDifferentiating renal tumours into grades and tumour subtype from medical imaging is important for patient management; however, there is an element of subjectivity when performed qualitatively. Quantitative analysis such as radiomics may provide a more objective approach. The purpose of this article is to systematically review the literature on computed tomography (CT) radiomics for grading and differentiating renal tumour subtypes. An educational perspective will also be provided.

methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist was followed. PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles. The quality of each study was assessed using the Radiomic Quality Score (RQS).

results13 studies were found. The main outcomes were prediction of pathological grade and differentiating between renal tumour types, measured as area under the curve (AUC) for either the receiver operator curve or precision recall curve. Features extracted to predict pathological grade or tumour subtype included shape, intensity, texture and wavelet (a type of higher order feature). Four studies differentiated between low-grade and high-grade clear cell renal cell cancer (RCC) with good performance (AUC = 0.82-0.978). One other study differentiated low- and high-grade chromophobe with AUC = 0.84. Finally, eight studies used radiomics to differentiate between tumour types such as clear cell RCC, fat-poor angiomyolipoma, papillary RCC, chromophobe RCC and renal oncocytoma with high levels of performance (AUC 0.82-0.96).

conclusionRenal tumours can be pathologically classified using CT-based radiomics with good performance. The main radiomic feature used for tumour differentiation was texture. Fuhrman was the most common pathologic grading system used in the reviewed studies. Renal tumour grading studies should be extended beyond clear cell RCC and chromophobe RCC. Further research with larger prospective studies, performed in the clinical setting, across multiple institutions would help with clinical translation to the radiologist's workstation.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedArtificial intelligenceComputed tomographyGradeMachine learningRadiomicsRenal tumours

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.