Performance of radiomics analysis in ultrasound imaging for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Francesca Moro, Marianna Ciancia, Maria Sciuto, Giulia Baldassari, Huong Elena Tran, Antonella Carcagnì, Anna Fagotti, Antonia Carla Testa
{"title":"Performance of radiomics analysis in ultrasound imaging for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Francesca Moro, Marianna Ciancia, Maria Sciuto, Giulia Baldassari, Huong Elena Tran, Antonella Carcagnì, Anna Fagotti, Antonia Carla Testa","doi":"10.1111/aogs.15146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We present the state of the art of ultrasound-based machine learning (ML) radiomics models in the context of ovarian masses and analyze their accuracy in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched. All studies were imported into RAYYAN QCRI software. All studies that developed and internally or externally validated ML models using only radiomics features extracted from ultrasound images were included. The overall quality of the included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-AI tool. Summary sensitivity and specificity analyses with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>12 studies developed ML models including only radiomics features extracted from ultrasound images, and six of them were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity and specificity for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses were 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.87) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.80-0.90), respectively, in the validation set. All studies demonstrated a high risk of bias in subject selection (e.g., lack of details on image sources or scanner models; absence of image preprocessing), and the majority also showed a high risk in the index test (e.g., models were not validated on external datasets) domain. In contrast, the risk of bias was generally low for the reference standard (i.e., most studies used a reference that accurately identified the target condition) and the testing workflow (i.e., the time interval between the index test and reference standard was appropriate) domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The good performance of ultrasound-based radiomics models in the validation set supports that radiomics is worth exploring to improve the diagnosis of adnexal masses. So far, the studies have a high risk of bias due to the small sample size, single-setting design, and no external validation included.</p>","PeriodicalId":6990,"journal":{"name":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.15146","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: We present the state of the art of ultrasound-based machine learning (ML) radiomics models in the context of ovarian masses and analyze their accuracy in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses.
Material and methods: Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched. All studies were imported into RAYYAN QCRI software. All studies that developed and internally or externally validated ML models using only radiomics features extracted from ultrasound images were included. The overall quality of the included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-AI tool. Summary sensitivity and specificity analyses with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.
Results: 12 studies developed ML models including only radiomics features extracted from ultrasound images, and six of them were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity and specificity for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses were 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.87) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.80-0.90), respectively, in the validation set. All studies demonstrated a high risk of bias in subject selection (e.g., lack of details on image sources or scanner models; absence of image preprocessing), and the majority also showed a high risk in the index test (e.g., models were not validated on external datasets) domain. In contrast, the risk of bias was generally low for the reference standard (i.e., most studies used a reference that accurately identified the target condition) and the testing workflow (i.e., the time interval between the index test and reference standard was appropriate) domains.
Conclusions: The good performance of ultrasound-based radiomics models in the validation set supports that radiomics is worth exploring to improve the diagnosis of adnexal masses. So far, the studies have a high risk of bias due to the small sample size, single-setting design, and no external validation included.
简介:我们介绍了基于超声的机器学习(ML)放射组学模型在卵巢肿块背景下的最新进展,并分析了它们在区分良性和恶性附件肿块方面的准确性。材料和方法:检索Web of Science、PubMed和Scopus数据库。所有研究均导入RAYYAN QCRI软件。所有仅使用从超声图像中提取的放射组学特征开发和内部或外部验证ML模型的研究均被纳入。使用QUADAS-AI工具评估纳入研究的总体质量。报告了相应95%置信区间(ci)的总结敏感性和特异性分析。结果:12项研究建立了仅包括从超声图像中提取的放射组学特征的ML模型,其中6项研究被纳入meta分析。在验证集中,区分良性和恶性附件肿块的总体敏感性和特异性分别为0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.87)和0.86 (95% CI 0.80-0.90)。所有的研究都表明在受试者选择上存在较高的偏倚风险(例如,缺乏图像来源或扫描仪模型的细节;缺乏图像预处理),并且大多数在索引测试中也显示出高风险(例如,模型未在外部数据集上验证)。相比之下,参考标准(即,大多数研究使用了准确识别目标条件的参考文献)和测试工作流(即,指标测试和参考标准之间的时间间隔是适当的)领域的偏倚风险通常较低。结论:基于超声的放射组学模型在验证集中表现良好,支持放射组学在提高附件肿块诊断方面值得探索。到目前为止,由于样本量小、单设定设计、未纳入外部验证,这些研究存在较高的偏倚风险。
期刊介绍:
Published monthly, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica is an international journal dedicated to providing the very latest information on the results of both clinical, basic and translational research work related to all aspects of women’s health from around the globe. The journal regularly publishes commentaries, reviews, and original articles on a wide variety of topics including: gynecology, pregnancy, birth, female urology, gynecologic oncology, fertility and reproductive biology.