Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39351025›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Multi-center external validation of an automated method segmenting and differentiating atypical lipomatous tumors from lipomas using radiomics and deep-learning on MRI.

D J Spaanderman, S N Hakkesteegt, D F Hanff, A R W Schut, L M Schiphouwer, M Vos, C Messiou, S J Doran, R L Jones, A J Hayes and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  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

23 authors.

D J SpaandermanDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
S N HakkesteegtDepartment of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
D F HanffDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
A R W SchutDepartment of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
L M SchiphouwerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
M VosDepartment of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
C MessiouThe Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research London, United Kingdom.
S J DoranThe Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research London, United Kingdom.
R L JonesThe Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research London, United Kingdom.
A J HayesThe Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research London, United Kingdom.
L NardoDepartment of Radiology, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Y G AbdelhafezDepartment of Radiology, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
A W MoawadDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
K M ElsayesDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
S LeeDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
T M LinkDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
W J NiessenFaculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
G J L H van LeendersDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
J J VisserDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
S KleinDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
D J GrünhagenDepartment of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
C VerhoefDepartment of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
M P A StarmansDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

Staff InvestigatorsP30CA093373 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI Gina M Dayton · 2002 to 2026
$84.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA093373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: As differentiating between lipomas and atypical lipomatous tumors (ALTs) based on imaging is challenging and requires biopsies, radiomics has been proposed to aid the diagnosis. This study aimed to externally and prospectively validate a radiomics model differentiating between lipomas and ALTs on MRI in three large, multi-center cohorts, and extend it with automatic and minimally interactive segmentation methods to increase clinical feasibility. Methods: Three study cohorts were formed, two for external validation containing data from medical centers in the United States (US) collected from 2008 until 2018 and the United Kingdom (UK) collected from 2011 until 2017, and one for prospective validation consisting of data collected from 2020 until 2021 in the Netherlands. Patient characteristics, MDM2 amplification status, and MRI scans were collected. An automatic segmentation method was developed to segment all tumors on T1-weighted MRI scans of the validation cohorts. Segmentations were subsequently quality scored. In case of insufficient quality, an interactive segmentation method was used. Radiomics performance was evaluated for all cohorts and compared to two radiologists. Findings: The validation cohorts included 150 (54% ALT), 208 (37% ALT), and 86 patients (28% ALT) from the US, UK and NL. Of the 444 cases, 78% were automatically segmented. For 22%, interactive segmentation was necessary due to insufficient quality, with only 3% of all patients requiring manual adjustment. External validation resulted in an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.82) in US data and 0.86 (0.80, 0.92) in UK data. Prospective validation resulted in an AUC of 0.89 (0.83, 0.96). The radiomics model performed similar to the two radiologists (US: 0.79 and 0.76, UK: 0.86 and 0.86, NL: 0.82 and 0.85). Interpretation: The radiomics model extended with automatic and minimally interactive segmentation methods accurately differentiated between lipomas and ALTs in two large, multi-center external cohorts, and in prospective validation, performing similar to expert radiologists, possibly limiting the need for invasive diagnostics. Funding: Hanarth fonds.

Indexed as

Deep learning-based segmentationExternal validationLipomatous tumorsMagnetic resonance imagingProspective validationRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID39351025
PMCPMC11440245

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.