Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33492473›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Incorporating radiomics into clinical trials: expert consensus endorsed by the European Society of Radiology on considerations for data-driven compared to biologically driven quantitative biomarkers.

Laure Fournier, Lena Costaridou, Luc Bidaut, Nicolas Michoux, Frederic E Lecouvet, Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei, Ronald Boellaard, Daniela E Oprea-Lager, Nancy A Obuchowski, Anna Caroli and 24 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 67 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Insights into radiomics: a comprehensive review for beginners.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

34 authors.

Laure FournierPARCC, INSERM, Radiology Department, AP-HP, Hopital europeen Georges Pompidou, Université de Paris, F-75015, Paris, France.
Lena CostaridouEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Luc BidautImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Nicolas MichouxImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Frederic E LecouvetImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Lioe-Fee de Geus-OeiImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Ronald BoellaardEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Daniela E Oprea-LagerImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Nancy A ObuchowskiQuantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance, Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook, IL, USA.
Anna CaroliEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Wolfgang G KunzImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Edwin H OeiEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
James P B O'ConnorEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Marius E MayerhoeferEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Manuela FrancaEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Angel Alberich-BayarriEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Christophe M DerooseImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Christian LoeweEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Rashindra ManniesingEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Caroline CaramellaImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Egesta LopciImaging Group, European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Nathalie LassauEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Anders PerssonEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Rik AchtenEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Karen RosendahlEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Olivier ClementPARCC, INSERM, Radiology Department, AP-HP, Hopital europeen Georges Pompidou, Université de Paris, F-75015, Paris, France.
Elmar KotterEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Xavier GolayEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Marion SmitsEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Marc DeweyEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Daniel C SullivanEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Aad van der LugtEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Nandita M deSouzaEuropean Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (EIBALL), European Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria. nandita.deSouza@icr.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4232-476X
European Society Of Radiology, Am Gestade 1, 1010, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Existing quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) are associated with known biological tissue characteristics and follow a well-understood path of technical, biological and clinical validation before incorporation into clinical trials. In radiomics, novel data-driven processes extract numerous visually imperceptible statistical features from the imaging data with no a priori assumptions on their correlation with biological processes. The selection of relevant features (radiomic signature) and incorporation into clinical trials therefore requires additional considerations to ensure meaningful imaging endpoints. Also, the number of radiomic features tested means that power calculations would result in sample sizes impossible to achieve within clinical trials. This article examines how the process of standardising and validating data-driven imaging biomarkers differs from those based on biological associations. Radiomic signatures are best developed initially on datasets that represent diversity of acquisition protocols as well as diversity of disease and of normal findings, rather than within clinical trials with standardised and optimised protocols as this would risk the selection of radiomic features being linked to the imaging process rather than the pathology. Normalisation through discretisation and feature harmonisation are essential pre-processing steps. Biological correlation may be performed after the technical and clinical validity of a radiomic signature is established, but is not mandatory. Feature selection may be part of discovery within a radiomics-specific trial or represent exploratory endpoints within an established trial; a previously validated radiomic signature may even be used as a primary/secondary endpoint, particularly if associations are demonstrated with specific biological processes and pathways being targeted within clinical trials. KEY POINTS: • Data-driven processes like radiomics risk false discoveries due to high-dimensionality of the dataset compared to sample size, making adequate diversity of the data, cross-validation and external validation essential to mitigate the risks of spurious associations and overfitting. • Use of radiomic signatures within clinical trials requires multistep standardisation of image acquisition, image analysis and data mining processes. • Biological correlation may be established after clinical validation but is not mandatory.

Indexed as

RadiologyTomography, X-Ray ComputedBiomarkersConsensusHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedBiomarkersClinical trialRadiologyStandardizationStatistics and numerical dataValidation studies

Identifiers

PMID33492473
PMCPMC8270834

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.