Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38625613›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2024

Post-radiotherapy stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer radiomics research: a systematic review and comparison of CLEAR and RQS frameworks.

Kevin Tran, Daniel Ginzburg, Wei Hong, Ulrike Attenberger, Hyun Soo Ko

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Kevin TranDepartment of Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.
Daniel GinzburgDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Venusberg Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Wei HongPersonalised Oncology Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ulrike AttenbergerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Venusberg Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Hyun Soo KoDepartment of Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia. hyun.ko@petermac.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6727-9507

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLung cancer, the second most common cancer, presents persistently dismal prognoses. Radiomics, a promising field, aims to provide novel imaging biomarkers to improve outcomes. However, clinical translation faces reproducibility challenges, despite efforts to address them with quality scoring tools.

objectiveThis study had two objectives: 1) identify radiomics biomarkers in post-radiotherapy stage III/IV nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, 2) evaluate research quality using the CLEAR (CheckList_for_EvaluAtion_of_Radiomics_research), RQS (Radiomics_Quality_Score) frameworks, and formulate an amalgamated CLEAR-RQS tool to enhance scientific rigor. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature review (Jun-Aug 2023, MEDLINE/PubMed/SCOPUS) was conducted concerning stage III/IV NSCLC, radiotherapy, and radiomic features (RF). Extracted data included study design particulars, such as sample size, radiotherapy/CT technique, selected RFs, and endpoints. CLEAR and RQS were merged into a CLEAR-RQS checklist. Three readers appraised articles utilizing CLEAR, RQS, and CLEAR-RQS metrics.

resultsOut of 871 articles, 11 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The Median cohort size was 91 (range: 10-337) with 9 studies being single-center. No common RF were identified. The merged CLEAR-RQS checklist comprised 61 items. Most unreported items were within CLEAR's "methods" and "open-source," and within RQS's "phantom-calibration," "registry-enrolled prospective-trial-design," and "cost-effective-analysis" sections. No study scored above 50% on RQS. Median CLEAR scores were 55.74% (32.33/58 points), and for RQS, 17.59% (6.3/36 points). CLEAR-RQS article ranking fell between CLEAR and RQS and aligned with CLEAR.

conclusionRadiomics research in post-radiotherapy stage III/IV NSCLC exhibits variability and frequently low-quality reporting. The formulated CLEAR-RQS checklist may facilitate education and holds promise for enhancing radiomics research quality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Current radiomics research in the field of stage III/IV postradiotherapy NSCLC is heterogenous, lacking reproducibility, with no identified imaging biomarker. Radiomics research quality assessment tools may enhance scientific rigor and thereby facilitate radiomics translation into clinical practice. KEY POINTS: There is heterogenous and low radiomics research quality in postradiotherapy stage III/IV nonsmall cell lung cancer. Barriers to reproducibility are small cohort size, nonvalidated studies, missing technical parameters, and lack of data, code, and model sharing. CLEAR (CheckList_for_EvaluAtion_of_Radiomics_research), RQS (Radiomics_Quality_Score), and the amalgamated CLEAR-RQS tool are useful frameworks for assessing radiomics research quality and may provide a valuable resource for educational purposes in the field of radiomics.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingHumansRadiomicsReproducibility of ResultsTomography, X-Ray ComputedLung neoplasmsMethodsMultidetector computed tomographyRadiomicsRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID38625613
PMCPMC11399214

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.