Methodological issues in radiomics: impact on accuracy of MRI for predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
European Radiology Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1007/s00330-024-11260-y
Sofia Netti, Oriana D'Ecclesiis, Federica Corso, Francesca Botta, Daniela Origgi, Filippo Pesapane, Giorgio Maria Agazzi, Anna Rotili, Aurora Gaeta, Elisa Scalco, Giovanna Rizzo, Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa, Enrico Cassano, Giuseppe Curigliano, Sara Gandini, Sara Raimondi
{"title":"Methodological issues in radiomics: impact on accuracy of MRI for predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.","authors":"Sofia Netti, Oriana D'Ecclesiis, Federica Corso, Francesca Botta, Daniela Origgi, Filippo Pesapane, Giorgio Maria Agazzi, Anna Rotili, Aurora Gaeta, Elisa Scalco, Giovanna Rizzo, Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa, Enrico Cassano, Giuseppe Curigliano, Sara Gandini, Sara Raimondi","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-11260-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate whether methodological aspects may influence the performance of MRI-radiomic models to predict response to neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) in breast cancer (BC) patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review until March 2023. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to combine the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's test and heterogeneity was estimated by I<sup>2</sup>. A meta-regression was conducted to investigate the impact of various factors, including scanner, features' number/transformation/type, pixel/voxel scaling, etc. RESULTS: Forty-two studies were included. The summary AUC was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74-0.81). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I<sup>2</sup> = 81%) with no publication bias (p = 0.35). Radiomic model accuracy was influenced by the scanner vendor, with lower AUCs in studies using mixed scanner vendors (AUC; 95% CI: 0.70; 0.61-0.78) compared to studies including images obtained from the same scanner (AUC (95% CI): 0.83 (0.77-0.88), 0.74 (0.67-0.82), 0.83 (0.78-0.89) for three different vendors; vendors 1, 2, and 3, respectively; p-value = 0.03 for comparison with vendor 1). Feature type also seemed to have an impact on the AUC, with higher prediction accuracy observed for studies using 3D than 2D/2.5D images (AUC; 95% CI: 0.81; 0.78-0.85 and 0.73; 0.65-0.81, respectively, p-value = 0.03). Non-significant between-study heterogeneity was observed in the studies including 3D images (I<sup>2</sup> = 33%) and Vendor 1 scanners (I<sup>2</sup> = 40%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MRI-radiomics has emerged as a potential method for predicting the response to NAT in BC patients, showing promising outcomes. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the diversity among the methodological choices applied. Further investigations should prioritize achieving standardized protocols, and enhancing methodological rigor in MRI-radiomics.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Do methodological aspects influence the performance of MRI-radiomic models in predicting response to NAT in BC patients? Findings Radiomic model accuracy was influenced by the scanner vendor and feature type. Clinical relevance Methodological discrepancies affect the performance of MRI-radiomic models. Developing standardized protocols and enhancing methodological rigor in these studies should be prioritized.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"4325-4334"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11260-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To investigate whether methodological aspects may influence the performance of MRI-radiomic models to predict response to neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) in breast cancer (BC) patients.

Materials and methods: We conducted a systematic review until March 2023. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to combine the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's test and heterogeneity was estimated by I2. A meta-regression was conducted to investigate the impact of various factors, including scanner, features' number/transformation/type, pixel/voxel scaling, etc. RESULTS: Forty-two studies were included. The summary AUC was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74-0.81). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 81%) with no publication bias (p = 0.35). Radiomic model accuracy was influenced by the scanner vendor, with lower AUCs in studies using mixed scanner vendors (AUC; 95% CI: 0.70; 0.61-0.78) compared to studies including images obtained from the same scanner (AUC (95% CI): 0.83 (0.77-0.88), 0.74 (0.67-0.82), 0.83 (0.78-0.89) for three different vendors; vendors 1, 2, and 3, respectively; p-value = 0.03 for comparison with vendor 1). Feature type also seemed to have an impact on the AUC, with higher prediction accuracy observed for studies using 3D than 2D/2.5D images (AUC; 95% CI: 0.81; 0.78-0.85 and 0.73; 0.65-0.81, respectively, p-value = 0.03). Non-significant between-study heterogeneity was observed in the studies including 3D images (I2 = 33%) and Vendor 1 scanners (I2 = 40%).

Conclusion: MRI-radiomics has emerged as a potential method for predicting the response to NAT in BC patients, showing promising outcomes. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the diversity among the methodological choices applied. Further investigations should prioritize achieving standardized protocols, and enhancing methodological rigor in MRI-radiomics.

Key points: Question Do methodological aspects influence the performance of MRI-radiomic models in predicting response to NAT in BC patients? Findings Radiomic model accuracy was influenced by the scanner vendor and feature type. Clinical relevance Methodological discrepancies affect the performance of MRI-radiomic models. Developing standardized protocols and enhancing methodological rigor in these studies should be prioritized.

放射组学中的方法学问题:对预测乳腺癌新辅助化疗反应的MRI准确性的影响。
目的:探讨方法学方面是否会影响mri放射学模型预测乳腺癌(BC)患者对新辅助治疗(NAT)反应的性能。材料和方法:我们进行了系统综述,直到2023年3月。随机效应荟萃分析结合受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)值。用Egger检验评估发表偏倚,用I2估计异质性。采用元回归分析扫描仪、特征数量/变换/类型、像素/体素缩放等因素对图像的影响。结果:纳入42项研究。总AUC为0.77 (95% CI: 0.74-0.81)。观察到大量异质性(I2 = 81%),无发表偏倚(p = 0.35)。放射学模型精度受到扫描仪供应商的影响,使用混合扫描仪供应商(AUC)的研究中AUC较低;95% ci: 0.70;(AUC (95% CI): 0.83(0.77-0.88)、0.74(0.67-0.82)、0.83 (0.78-0.89);供应商1、2和3分别;p值= 0.03,与供应商1相比)。特征类型似乎也对AUC有影响,使用3D图像的研究的预测精度高于2D/2.5D图像(AUC;95% ci: 0.81;0.78-0.85和0.73;分别为0.65 ~ 0.81,p值= 0.03)。在包括3D图像(I2 = 33%)和Vendor 1扫描仪(I2 = 40%)的研究中,观察到无显著的研究间异质性。结论:mri放射组学已成为预测BC患者对NAT反应的一种潜在方法,并显示出良好的结果。然而,重要的是要承认所采用的方法选择的多样性。进一步的研究应优先考虑实现标准化的方案,并加强mri放射组学方法的严谨性。在预测BC患者对NAT的反应时,方法学方面是否会影响mri放射学模型的性能?结果放射学模型的准确性受扫描仪供应商和特征类型的影响。临床相关性方法学差异影响mri放射模型的性能。应优先考虑制定标准化方案和提高这些研究方法的严谨性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信