A systematic review of artificial intelligence in radiotherapy associated cardiovascular toxicity.

IF 3.4 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Vivian Salama, Brandon M Godinich, Nathaniel Dunham, Troy Nguyen, Sijin Wen, Joseph A Schmidlen, Wesley Cox, Peyton M Lilly, Jeffrey Ryckman, Ramon Alfredo Siochi, Ashkan Emadi, Christopher M Bianco, George G Sokos, Raymond R Raylman, David A Clump, Mina F Hanna, Phillip M Pifer
{"title":"A systematic review of artificial intelligence in radiotherapy associated cardiovascular toxicity.","authors":"Vivian Salama, Brandon M Godinich, Nathaniel Dunham, Troy Nguyen, Sijin Wen, Joseph A Schmidlen, Wesley Cox, Peyton M Lilly, Jeffrey Ryckman, Ramon Alfredo Siochi, Ashkan Emadi, Christopher M Bianco, George G Sokos, Raymond R Raylman, David A Clump, Mina F Hanna, Phillip M Pifer","doi":"10.1186/s40959-026-00528-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiovascular toxicity (CVT) is a major concern after radiotherapy (RT), contributing to morbidity and mortality among cancer survivors. Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve risk prediction and RT planning; however, its role in RT-associated CVT remains unclear. This study aimed to systematically evaluate AI applications and study quality in this field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A PRISMA-guided systematic review of PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted through October 1, 2025. Eligible studies included original human research in English applying AI to CVT or imaging in cancer populations receiving RT. Predictive and imaging studies were evaluated using TRIPOD + AI/PROBAST and CLAIM/QUADAS-2, respectively. Exploratory meta-analysis of performance metrics was conducted where feasible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-five studies were included, comprising AI prediction models (n = 31, 48%) and cardiovascular imaging applications (n = 34, 52%). Deep learning was the most common approach (45/65, 69%) and demonstrated the highest predictive performance (median AUC = 0.82; median sensitivity = 0.83). Calibration assessment (3/31, 10%) and external validation (6/31, 19%) were limited. Meta-analysis demonstrated an overall predictive model accuracy of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.87). Imaging models performed well for larger cardiac structures (overall median DSC = 0.85, range: 0.76-0.94), while coronary artery segmentation remained challenging. Average TRIPOD + AI and CLAIM adherence were 79% and 71%, respectively. Most predictive (97%) and imaging (82%) studies were rated at high risk-of-bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AI shows promise for RT-associated CVT prediction and imaging but is underdeveloped for routine clinical implementation. Heterogeneity, limited validation, and methodological limitations highlight the need for standardized endpoints, external validation, and prospective clinical evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9804,"journal":{"name":"Cardio-oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13543590/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardio-oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40959-026-00528-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cardiovascular toxicity (CVT) is a major concern after radiotherapy (RT), contributing to morbidity and mortality among cancer survivors. Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve risk prediction and RT planning; however, its role in RT-associated CVT remains unclear. This study aimed to systematically evaluate AI applications and study quality in this field.

Methods: A PRISMA-guided systematic review of PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted through October 1, 2025. Eligible studies included original human research in English applying AI to CVT or imaging in cancer populations receiving RT. Predictive and imaging studies were evaluated using TRIPOD + AI/PROBAST and CLAIM/QUADAS-2, respectively. Exploratory meta-analysis of performance metrics was conducted where feasible.

Results: Sixty-five studies were included, comprising AI prediction models (n = 31, 48%) and cardiovascular imaging applications (n = 34, 52%). Deep learning was the most common approach (45/65, 69%) and demonstrated the highest predictive performance (median AUC = 0.82; median sensitivity = 0.83). Calibration assessment (3/31, 10%) and external validation (6/31, 19%) were limited. Meta-analysis demonstrated an overall predictive model accuracy of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.87). Imaging models performed well for larger cardiac structures (overall median DSC = 0.85, range: 0.76-0.94), while coronary artery segmentation remained challenging. Average TRIPOD + AI and CLAIM adherence were 79% and 71%, respectively. Most predictive (97%) and imaging (82%) studies were rated at high risk-of-bias.

Conclusion: AI shows promise for RT-associated CVT prediction and imaging but is underdeveloped for routine clinical implementation. Heterogeneity, limited validation, and methodological limitations highlight the need for standardized endpoints, external validation, and prospective clinical evaluation.

人工智能在放疗相关心血管毒性研究中的系统综述。
背景:心血管毒性(CVT)是放疗(RT)后的主要问题,是癌症幸存者发病率和死亡率的重要因素。人工智能(AI)可以改善风险预测和RT计划;然而,其在rt相关CVT中的作用尚不清楚。本研究旨在系统评价人工智能在该领域的应用和研究质量。方法:在prisma引导下对PubMed、Ovid EMBASE、Cochrane Library和Web of Science进行系统评价,截止到2025年10月1日。符合条件的研究包括在接受放疗的癌症人群中应用AI进行CVT或成像的英文原始人类研究。预测和成像研究分别使用TRIPOD + AI/PROBAST和CLAIM/QUADAS-2进行评估。在可行的情况下对绩效指标进行探索性荟萃分析。结果:纳入65项研究,包括人工智能预测模型(n = 31, 48%)和心血管成像应用(n = 34, 52%)。深度学习是最常见的方法(45/65,69%),并表现出最高的预测性能(中位AUC = 0.82;中位灵敏度= 0.83)。校准评估(3/ 31,10 %)和外部验证(6/ 31,19 %)有限。meta分析显示整体预测模型的准确度为0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.87)。成像模型对较大的心脏结构表现良好(总体DSC中位数= 0.85,范围:0.76-0.94),而冠状动脉分割仍然具有挑战性。平均TRIPOD + AI和CLAIM依从性分别为79%和71%。大多数预测研究(97%)和影像学研究(82%)被评为高偏倚风险。结论:人工智能在rt相关CVT预测和成像方面有前景,但在常规临床应用方面尚不成熟。异质性、有限的验证和方法学的局限性突出了对标准化终点、外部验证和前瞻性临床评估的需求。
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
Cardio-oncology
Cardio-oncology Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
3.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
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
小红书