Diagnostic Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT Radiomics in Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-21 DOI:10.1177/15330338251342860
Chaoying Liu, Jun Zhao, Heng Zhang, Xinye Ni
{"title":"Diagnostic Value of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT Radiomics in Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Chaoying Liu, Jun Zhao, Heng Zhang, Xinye Ni","doi":"10.1177/15330338251342860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionVarious machine learning models and features have been proposed for lymphoma diagnosis using <sup>18</sup>F-fluorodeoxyglucose (<sup>18</sup>F-FDG) PET/CT radiomics. This research aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT radiomics in lymphoma by conducting a meta-analysis.MethodsData from published studies regarding the diagnosis of lymphoma using <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT radiomics, from January 2010 to July 2024, were gathered from PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Following their separate searches and screenings of the literature, two researchers extracted data and assessed the caliber of all the included studies. The quality assessment involved the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2), the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS), and the METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS). The meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.4.1, R 4.4.0, and Stata 17.0 software. Six meta-regressions were conducted on study performance, considering sample size, image modality, region of interest (ROI) selection, ROI segmentation, radiomics mode, and algorithms.ResultsIn total, 20 studies classified as type 2a or above according to the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement were included for this systematic review and meta-analysis. The studies achieved an average RQS of 13 (ranging from 10 to 17), accounting for 36.1% of the total points. The average METRICS score was 69.3% (ranging from 54.8% to 80.9%). The quality category of the studies is mainly \"good\". The results of our meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (<i>CI</i>) were 0.82 (0.78, 0.88), 0.83 (0.76, 0.87), 4.7 (3.4, 6.6), 0.20 (0.15, 0.28) and 23 (13, 42), respectively. The area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.90 (0.87, 0.92). The results of Spearman correlation analysis revealed no threshold effect among the studies (<i>P</i> = .423). Significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (overall <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> = 83.7%; 95% <i>CI</i>: 76.0, 88.9; <i>P</i> < .01). Meta-regressions indicated that sample size and ROI selection contributed to the heterogeneity in SEN, while algorithms affected the heterogeneity in SPE (<i>P</i> < .05). Deeks' test confirmed there was no significant publication bias in all the included studies. The Fagan nomogram showed an absolute increase of 34% in the post-test probability following a positive test result.ConclusionThe results supported that <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT radiomics has high diagnostic value for lymphoma. However, there is high heterogeneity among different studies. In the future, clinical practicality needs to be substantiated by more prospective studies with rigorous adherence to existing guidelines and multicentric validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":22203,"journal":{"name":"Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment","volume":"24 ","pages":"15330338251342860"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12099142/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338251342860","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IntroductionVarious machine learning models and features have been proposed for lymphoma diagnosis using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET/CT radiomics. This research aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT radiomics in lymphoma by conducting a meta-analysis.MethodsData from published studies regarding the diagnosis of lymphoma using 18F-FDG PET/CT radiomics, from January 2010 to July 2024, were gathered from PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Following their separate searches and screenings of the literature, two researchers extracted data and assessed the caliber of all the included studies. The quality assessment involved the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2), the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS), and the METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS). The meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.4.1, R 4.4.0, and Stata 17.0 software. Six meta-regressions were conducted on study performance, considering sample size, image modality, region of interest (ROI) selection, ROI segmentation, radiomics mode, and algorithms.ResultsIn total, 20 studies classified as type 2a or above according to the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement were included for this systematic review and meta-analysis. The studies achieved an average RQS of 13 (ranging from 10 to 17), accounting for 36.1% of the total points. The average METRICS score was 69.3% (ranging from 54.8% to 80.9%). The quality category of the studies is mainly "good". The results of our meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) were 0.82 (0.78, 0.88), 0.83 (0.76, 0.87), 4.7 (3.4, 6.6), 0.20 (0.15, 0.28) and 23 (13, 42), respectively. The area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.90 (0.87, 0.92). The results of Spearman correlation analysis revealed no threshold effect among the studies (P = .423). Significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (overall I2 = 83.7%; 95% CI: 76.0, 88.9; P < .01). Meta-regressions indicated that sample size and ROI selection contributed to the heterogeneity in SEN, while algorithms affected the heterogeneity in SPE (P < .05). Deeks' test confirmed there was no significant publication bias in all the included studies. The Fagan nomogram showed an absolute increase of 34% in the post-test probability following a positive test result.ConclusionThe results supported that 18F-FDG PET/CT radiomics has high diagnostic value for lymphoma. However, there is high heterogeneity among different studies. In the future, clinical practicality needs to be substantiated by more prospective studies with rigorous adherence to existing guidelines and multicentric validation.

18F-FDG PET/CT放射组学在淋巴瘤中的诊断价值:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
各种机器学习模型和特征被提出用于使用18f -氟脱氧葡萄糖(18F-FDG) PET/CT放射组学进行淋巴瘤诊断。本研究旨在通过荟萃分析,系统评价18F-FDG PET/CT放射组学在淋巴瘤中的诊断价值。方法收集2010年1月至2024年7月期间发表的关于使用18F-FDG PET/CT放射组学诊断淋巴瘤的研究数据,数据来自PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆。在各自的文献检索和筛选之后,两位研究人员提取了数据并评估了所有纳入研究的水平。质量评估包括诊断准确性研究质量评估2 (QUADAS-2)、放射组学质量评分(RQS)和放射组学方法学评分(METRICS)。meta分析采用RevMan 5.4.1、R 4.4.0、Stata 17.0软件进行。考虑样本量、图像模态、感兴趣区域(ROI)选择、ROI分割、放射组学模式和算法,对研究绩效进行了六次元回归。结果根据透明报告个体预后或诊断的多变量预测模型(TRIPOD)声明,共有20项研究被纳入本系统评价和荟萃分析。这些研究的平均RQS为13(范围从10到17),占总分的36.1%。平均METRICS评分为69.3%(范围从54.8%到80.9%)。研究的质量类别主要是“好”。meta分析结果显示,合并敏感性(SEN)、特异性(SPE)、阳性似然比、阴性似然比和诊断优势比(95%置信区间CI)分别为0.82(0.78,0.88)、0.83(0.76,0.87)、4.7(3.4,6.6)、0.20(0.15,0.28)和23(13,42)。综合受试者工作特征曲线下面积分别为0.90(0.87,0.92)。Spearman相关分析结果显示各研究间无阈值效应(P = .423)。研究间存在显著的异质性(总体I2 = 83.7%;95% ci: 76.0, 88.9;p18f - fdg PET/CT放射组学对淋巴瘤有较高的诊断价值。然而,不同研究之间存在较高的异质性。在未来,临床实用性需要通过更多严格遵守现有指南和多中心验证的前瞻性研究来证实。
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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
202
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment (TCRT) is a JCR-ranked, broad-spectrum, open access, peer-reviewed publication whose aim is to provide researchers and clinicians with a platform to share and discuss developments in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of cancer.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信