Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35267418›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Contrast MR-Based Radiomics and Machine Learning Analysis to Assess Clinical Outcomes following Liver Resection in Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Preliminary Study.

Vincenza Granata, Roberta Fusco, Federica De Muzio, Carmen Cutolo, Sergio Venanzio Setola, Federica Dell' Aversana, Alessandro Ottaiano, Antonio Avallone, Guglielmo Nasti, Francesca Grassi and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Radiomics in colorectal cancer patients.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

15 authors.

Vincenza GranataDivision of Radiology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Roberta FuscoMedical Oncology Division, Igea SpA, 80013 Napoli, Italy.
Federica De MuzioDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences V. Tiberio, University of Molise, 86100 Campobasso, Italy.
Carmen CutoloDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84084 Salerno, Italy.
Sergio Venanzio SetolaDivision of Radiology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Federica Dell' AversanaDivision of Radiology, Università Degli Studi Della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80138 Naples, Italy.
Alessandro OttaianoDivision of Abdominal Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2901-3855
Antonio AvalloneDivision of Abdominal Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6188-5664
Guglielmo NastiDivision of Abdominal Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Francesca GrassiDivision of Radiology, Università Degli Studi Della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80138 Naples, Italy.
Vincenzo PiloneDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84084 Salerno, Italy.
Vittorio MieleDivision of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi, 50134 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7848-1567
Luca BruneseDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences V. Tiberio, University of Molise, 86100 Campobasso, Italy.
Francesco IzzoDivision of Epatobiliary Surgical Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3093-5408
Antonella PetrilloDivision of Radiology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2465-5370

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess radiomics features efficacy obtained by arterial and portal MRI phase in the prediction of clinical outcomes in the colorectal liver metastases patients, evaluating recurrence, mutational status, pathological characteristic (mucinous and tumor budding) and surgical resection margin.

methodsThis retrospective analysis was approved by the local Ethical Committee board, and radiological databases were used to select patients with colorectal liver metastases with pathological proof and MRI study in a pre-surgical setting after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The cohort of patients included a training set (51 patients with 61 years of median age and 121 liver metastases) and an external validation set (30 patients with single lesion with 60 years of median age). For each segmented volume of interest on MRI by two expert radiologists, 851 radiomics features were extracted as median values using the PyRadiomics tool. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, intraclass correlation, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, linear regression modelling and pattern recognition methods (support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), artificial neural network (NNET), and decision tree (DT)) were considered.

resultsThe best predictor to discriminate expansive versus infiltrative tumor growth front was wavelet_LHH_glrlm_ShortRunLowGrayLevelEmphasis extracted on portal phase with accuracy of 82%, sensitivity of 84%, and specificity of 77%. The best predictor to discriminate tumor budding was wavelet_LLH_firstorder_10Percentile extracted on portal phase with accuracy of 92%, a sensitivity of 96%, and a specificity of 81%. The best predictor to differentiate the mucinous type of tumor was the wavelet_LLL_glcm_ClusterTendency extracted on portal phase with accuracy of 88%, a sensitivity of 38%, and a specificity of 100%. The best predictor to identify the recurrence was the wavelet_HLH_ngtdm_Complexity extracted on arterial phase with accuracy of 90%, a sensitivity of 71%, and a specificity of 95%. The best linear regression model was obtained in the identification of mucinous type considering the 13 textural significant metrics extracted by arterial phase (accuracy of 94%, sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 99%). The best results were obtained in the identification of tumor budding with the eleven textural significant features extracted by arterial phase using a KNN (accuracy of 95%, sensitivity of 84%, and a specificity of 99%).

conclusionsOur results confirmed the capacity of radiomics to identify as biomarkers and several prognostic features that could affect the treatment choice in patients with liver metastases in order to obtain a more personalized approach.

Indexed as

colorectal liver metastasismagnetic resonance imagingoutcome predictionpattern recognitionradiomics

Identifiers

PMID35267418
PMCPMC8909569

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.