Mohammad Mehdi Mehrabi Nejad , Mohammad Reza Ghanbari Boroujeni , Alireza Hayati , Fatemeh Dashti , Jayaram K. Udupa , Drew A. Torigian
{"title":"Performance of AI methods in PET-based imaging for outcome prediction in lymphoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Mohammad Mehdi Mehrabi Nejad , Mohammad Reza Ghanbari Boroujeni , Alireza Hayati , Fatemeh Dashti , Jayaram K. Udupa , Drew A. Torigian","doi":"10.1016/j.ejrad.2025.112204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To evaluate the predictive performance of artificial intelligence (AI) methods using pre-treatment PET-based imaging for outcome prediction in lymphoma through a systematic review and <em>meta</em>-analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for original studies on AI prediction models using PET-based imaging in lymphoma up to October 2024. Eligible studies reported outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), or treatment response. Meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, <em>meta</em>-regressions, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis were conducted using Stata software.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Seventy-five studies were included, predominantly focusing on non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n = 61). AI methods included deep learning (DL, n = 13), machine learning (ML, n = 2), combined ML/radiomics (n = 23), and radiomics (n = 37). Pooled analyses showed strong predictive performance for PFS (HR: 4.11 [3.20–5.29], AUC: 0.78 [0.68–0.86], C-index: 0.79 [0.76–0.83]) and OS (HR: 3.38 [2.29–4.99], AUC: 0.75 [0.66–0.83], C-index: 0.79 [0.76–0.81]) in the main groups with consistent results in the validation groups. For treatment response, pooled OR was 5.36 [1.53–18.78], and AUC was 0.85 [0.74–0.92]. DL outperformed other AI methods in PFS and treatment response prediction.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>AI methods, particularly DL, show strong predictive performance for lymphoma outcomes using PET-based imaging, supporting their potential utility in precision medicine. Further prospective studies are needed for clinical integration.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12063,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology","volume":"190 ","pages":"Article 112204"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0720048X25002906","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the predictive performance of artificial intelligence (AI) methods using pre-treatment PET-based imaging for outcome prediction in lymphoma through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods
PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for original studies on AI prediction models using PET-based imaging in lymphoma up to October 2024. Eligible studies reported outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), or treatment response. Meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, meta-regressions, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis were conducted using Stata software.
Results
Seventy-five studies were included, predominantly focusing on non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n = 61). AI methods included deep learning (DL, n = 13), machine learning (ML, n = 2), combined ML/radiomics (n = 23), and radiomics (n = 37). Pooled analyses showed strong predictive performance for PFS (HR: 4.11 [3.20–5.29], AUC: 0.78 [0.68–0.86], C-index: 0.79 [0.76–0.83]) and OS (HR: 3.38 [2.29–4.99], AUC: 0.75 [0.66–0.83], C-index: 0.79 [0.76–0.81]) in the main groups with consistent results in the validation groups. For treatment response, pooled OR was 5.36 [1.53–18.78], and AUC was 0.85 [0.74–0.92]. DL outperformed other AI methods in PFS and treatment response prediction.
Conclusion
AI methods, particularly DL, show strong predictive performance for lymphoma outcomes using PET-based imaging, supporting their potential utility in precision medicine. Further prospective studies are needed for clinical integration.
期刊介绍:
European Journal of Radiology is an international journal which aims to communicate to its readers, state-of-the-art information on imaging developments in the form of high quality original research articles and timely reviews on current developments in the field.
Its audience includes clinicians at all levels of training including radiology trainees, newly qualified imaging specialists and the experienced radiologist. Its aim is to inform efficient, appropriate and evidence-based imaging practice to the benefit of patients worldwide.