Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37987835›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

Independent validation of CT radiomics models in colorectal liver metastases: predicting local tumour progression after ablation.

Denise J van der Reijd, Corentin Guerendel, Femke C R Staal, Milou P Busard, Mateus De Oliveira Taveira, Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer, Koert F D Kuhlmann, Adriaan Moelker, Cornelis Verhoef, Martijn P A Starmans and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Denise J van der ReijdDepartment of Radiology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek - The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Corentin GuerendelDepartment of Radiology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek - The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Femke C R StaalDepartment of Radiology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek - The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Milou P BusardDepartment of Radiology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek - The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mateus De Oliveira TaveiraDepartment of Radiology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek - The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Elisabeth G KlompenhouwerDepartment of Radiology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek - The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Koert F D KuhlmannDepartment of Surgery, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek - The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Adriaan MoelkerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Hospital Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Cornelis VerhoefDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Hospital Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn P A StarmansDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Hospital Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Doenja M J LambregtsDepartment of Radiology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek - The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Regina G H Beets-TanDepartment of Radiology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek - The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sean BensonDepartment of Radiology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek - The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique MaasDepartment of Radiology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek - The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. moniquemaas@live.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7721-2341
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLMaastricht University · NLNetherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital · NLUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIndependent internal and external validation of three previously published CT-based radiomics models to predict local tumor progression (LTP) after thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with CRLM treated with thermal ablation were collected from two institutions to collect a new independent internal and external validation cohort. Ablation zones (AZ) were delineated on portal venous phase CT 2-8 weeks post-ablation. Radiomics features were extracted from the AZ and a 10 mm peri-ablational rim (PAR) of liver parenchyma around the AZ. Three previously published prediction models (clinical, radiomics, combined) were tested without retraining. LTP was defined as new tumor foci appearing next to the AZ up to 24 months post-ablation.

resultsThe internal cohort included 39 patients with 68 CRLM and the external cohort 52 patients with 78 CRLM. 34/146 CRLM developed LTP after a median follow-up of 24 months (range 5-139). The median time to LTP was 8 months (range 2-22). The combined clinical-radiomics model yielded a c-statistic of 0.47 (95%CI 0.30-0.64) in the internal cohort and 0.50 (95%CI 0.38-0.62) in the external cohort, compared to 0.78 (95%CI 0.65-0.87) in the previously published original cohort. The radiomics model yielded c-statistics of 0.46 (95%CI 0.29-0.63) and 0.39 (95%CI 0.28-0.52), and the clinical model 0.51 (95%CI 0.34-0.68) and 0.51 (95%CI 0.39-0.63) in the internal and external cohort, respectively.

conclusionThe previously published results for prediction of LTP after thermal ablation of CRLM using clinical and radiomics models were not reproducible in independent internal and external validation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Local tumour progression after thermal ablation of CRLM cannot yet be predicted with the use of CT radiomics of the ablation zone and peri-ablational rim. These results underline the importance of validation of radiomics results to test for reproducibility in independent cohorts. KEY POINTS: • Previous research suggests CT radiomics models have the potential to predict local tumour progression after thermal ablation in colorectal liver metastases, but independent validation is lacking. • In internal and external validation, the previously published models were not able to predict local tumour progression after ablation. • Radiomics prediction models should be investigated in independent validation cohorts to check for reproducibility.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionLiver NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRadiomicsRetrospective StudiesColorectal cancerLiverMachine learningMetastasesValidation study

Identifiers

PMID37987835
PMCPMC11166748
OpenAlexW4388845776

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.