ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Can Whole-Body Baseline CT Radiomics Add Information to the Prediction of Best Response, Progression-Free Survival, and Overall Survival of Stage IV Melanoma Patients Receiving First-Line Targeted Therapy: A Retrospective Register Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heterocellular crosstalk and architecture of the pancreatic tumour microenvironment.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Review
- Radiology-based artificial intelligence for predicting targeted therapy response in pan-cancer: a comprehensive review.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Metastatic Melanoma Prognosis Prediction Using a TC Radiomic-Based Machine Learning Model: A Preliminary Study.Cancers · 2025Article
- Explanation and Elaboration with Examples for CLEAR (CLEAR-E3): an EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group Initiative.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate whether the combination of radiomics and clinical parameters in a machine-learning model offers additive information compared with the use of only clinical parameters in predicting the best response, progression-free survival after six months, as well as overall survival after six and twelve months in patients with stage IV malignant melanoma undergoing first-line targeted therapy.
methodsA baseline machine-learning model using clinical variables (demographic parameters and tumor markers) was compared with an extended model using clinical variables and radiomic features of the whole tumor burden, utilizing repeated five-fold cross-validation. Baseline CTs of 91 stage IV malignant melanoma patients, all treated in the same university hospital, were identified in the Central Malignant Melanoma Registry and all metastases were volumetrically segmented (
resultsCompared with the baseline model, the extended radiomics model did not add significantly more information to the best-response prediction (AUC [95% CI] 0.548 (0.188, 0.808) vs. 0.487 (0.139, 0.743)), the prediction of PFS after six months (AUC [95% CI] 0.699 (0.436, 0.958) vs. 0.604 (0.373, 0.867)), or the overall survival prediction after six and twelve months (AUC [95% CI] 0.685 (0.188, 0.967) vs. 0.766 (0.433, 1.000) and AUC [95% CI] 0.554 (0.163, 0.781) vs. 0.616 (0.271, 1.000), respectively).
conclusionsThe results showed no additional value of baseline whole-body CT radiomics for best-response prediction, progression-free survival prediction for six months, or six-month and twelve-month overall survival prediction for stage IV melanoma patients receiving first-line targeted therapy. These results need to be validated in a larger cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.