Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41817818›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026

Tumor morphology on CT radiomics is largely driven by the local anatomical environment, not the primary tumor type.

Sajjad Rostami, Corentin Guérendel, Marleen Soliman, Hannah W Stutterheim, Olga Maxouri, Diana Ivonne Rodríguez Sánchez, Stephan Ursprung, Nino Boveradze, George Agrotis, Kalina Chupetlovska and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology experimental, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

25 authors.

Sajjad Rostami *Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Corentin Guérendel *Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marleen SolimanDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hannah W StutterheimDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Olga MaxouriDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Diana Ivonne Rodríguez SánchezDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Stephan UrsprungDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nino BoveradzeDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
George AgrotisDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kalina ChupetlovskaDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Francesca CastagnoliDepartment of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
Federica LandolfiRadiology Unit, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Eun Kyoung HongDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Andrea Delli PizziDepartment of Innovative Technologies in Medicine & Dentistry, G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
Nicolo GennaroFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Mohamed A AbdelattyDepartment of Radiology, Kasr Al-Ainy Hospital, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Warissara JutidamrongphanDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Liliana PetrychenkoDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter MatkulcikDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czechia.
Alba Salgado-ParenteDepartment of Radiology, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Francesco Marcello AricoDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology Unit, BIOMORF Department, University Hospital "Policlinico G. Martino", Messina, Italy.
Sean BensonDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Petur SnaebjornssonDepartment of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Zuhir BodalalDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Regina G H Beets-TanGROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. r.beetstan@nki.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8533-5090

Funding

Anna en Maurits de Kock stichting 2019-8H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 101034290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRadiogenomics promises noninvasive tumor profiling; however, the extent to which imaging morphology reflects tumor lineage versus host-organ milieu remains unclear. This study aimed to quantify the relative influence of tumor type and anatomical environment on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) radiomic phenotypes. MATERIALS AND

methodsA discovery cohort of 1,598 patients (10,485 lesions) and an external validation cohort of 2,440 patients (6,597 lesions) underwent portal-venous-phase CT. After manual segmentation, lesion-level radiomic features were standardized and embedded using t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding. Bayesian-optimized agglomerative clustering defined morphology-based groups. Concordance with the primary tumor site (lineage) and anatomical environment was quantified using bootstrapped adjusted Rand indices (ARI); the silhouette score assessed clustering quality. Feature-class (shape, intensity, texture) and mask-erosion experiments probed mechanistic drivers.

resultsSix morphological clusters were identified in the discovery set (silhouette = 0.44). Morphology aligned more strongly with environment (mean ARI = 0.37) but poorly with lineage (mean ARI = 0.04; p < 0.010); this pattern held externally. In solid organ metastases, environment dominance was even stronger (mean ARI = 0.60 versus 0.05; p < 0.010). Intensity and texture drove the morphological association with anatomical environment (ARI = 0.64-0.56) more than shape (ARI = 0.06). When the periphery of the tumor was eroded, the same patterns were observed, implicating the tumor core.

conclusionAcross organs and tumor types, tumor morphological phenotype on CT imaging is largely driven by a host tissue-related environmental "imprint" rather than the primary tumor site. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Context-aware modeling is essential for reliable radiomic biomarkers and could motivate a two-step AI pipeline that first identifies the organ habitat and refines lineage-specific predictions. KEY POINTS: In a large, multicenter cohort, tumors exhibited distinct morphological clustering. These clusters did not align with primary tumor sites (ARI = 0.04). Stronger associations emerged between morphological clusters and the local anatomical environment (ARI = 0.37). Stratification by lesion type revealed even stronger associations between local anatomical context and solid organ metastases (ARI = 0.60).

Indexed as

NeoplasmsRadiomicsTomography, X-Ray ComputedCohort StudiesContrast MediaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedContrast MediaBiomarkersNeoplasmsRadiomicsTomography (x-ray computed)Tumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID41817818
PMCPMC12982741

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.