Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36330197›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022

Performance variability of radiomics machine learning models for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in heterogeneous MRI datasets.

Eva Gresser, Balthasar Schachtner, Anna Theresa Stüber, Olga Solyanik, Andrea Schreier, Thomas Huber, Matthias Frank Froelich, Giuseppe Magistro, Alexander Kretschmer, Christian Stief and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

13 authors.

Eva Gresser *Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Balthasar Schachtner *Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Anna Theresa StüberDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Olga SolyanikDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Andrea SchreierDepartment of Otolaryngology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Thomas HuberDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Matthias Frank FroelichDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Giuseppe MagistroDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Alexander KretschmerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Christian StiefDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jens RickeDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Michael Ingrisch *Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Dominik Nörenberg *Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Radiomics promises to enhance the discriminative performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), but still lacks validation in real-life scenarios. This study investigates the classification performance and robustness of machine learning radiomics models in heterogeneous MRI datasets to characterize suspicious prostate lesions for non-invasive prediction of prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness compared to conventional imaging biomarkers. Methods: A total of 142 patients with clinical suspicion of PCa underwent 1.5T or 3T biparametric MRI (7 scanner types, 14 institutions) and exhibited suspicious lesions [prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score ≥3] in peripheral or transitional zones. Whole-gland and index-lesion segmentations were performed semi-automatically. A total of 1,482 quantitative morphologic, shape, texture, and intensity-based radiomics features were extracted from T2-weighted and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)-images and assessed using random forest and logistic regression models. Five-fold cross-validation performance in terms of area under the ROC curve was compared to mean ADC (mADC), PI-RADS and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD). Bias mitigation techniques targeting the high-dimensional feature space and inherent class imbalance were applied and robustness of results was systematically evaluated. Results: Trained models showed mean area under the curves (AUCs) ranging from 0.78 to 0.83 in csPCa classification. Despite using mitigation techniques, high performance variability of results could be demonstrated. Trained models achieved on average numerically higher classification performance compared to clinical parameters PI-RADS (AUC =0.78), mADC (AUC =0.71) and PSAD (AUC =0.63). Conclusions: Radiomics models' classification performance of csPCa was numerically but not significantly higher than PI-RADS scoring. Overall, clinical applicability in heterogeneous MRI datasets is limited because of high variability of results. Performance variability, robustness and reproducibility of radiomics-based measures should be addressed more transparently in future research to enable broad clinical application.

Indexed as

imaging biomarkerMagnetic resonance imagingprostate cancer (PCa)prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)radiomics

Identifiers

PMID36330197
PMCPMC9622454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.