Background: Radiomics have the potential to further increase the value of MRI in prostate cancer management. However, implementation in clinical practice is still far and concerns have been raised regarding the methodological quality of radiomic studies. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the literature to assess the quality of prostate MRI radiomic studies using the radiomics quality score (RQS). Methods: Multiple medical literature archives (PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE) were searched to retrieve original investigations focused on prostate MRI radiomic approaches up to the end of June 2019. Three researchers independently assessed each paper using the RQS. Data from the most experienced researcher were used for descriptive analysis. Inter-rater reproducibility was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) on the total RQS score. Results: 73 studies were included in the analysis. Overall, the average RQS total score was 7.93 ± 5.13 on a maximum of 36 points, with a final average percentage of 23 ± 13%. Among the most critical items, the lack of feature robustness testing strategies and external validation datasets. The ICC resulted poor to moderate, with an average value of 0.57 and 95% Confidence Intervals between 0.44 and 0.69. Conclusions: Current studies on prostate MRI radiomics still lack the quality required to allow their introduction in clinical practice.

Prostate MRI radiomics: A systematic review and radiomic quality score assessment / Stanzione, A.; Gambardella, M.; Cuocolo, R.; Ponsiglione, A.; Romeo, V.; Imbriaco, M.. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY. - ISSN 0720-048X. - 129:(2020), p. 109095. [10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109095]

Prostate MRI radiomics: A systematic review and radiomic quality score assessment

Stanzione A.;Gambardella M.;Cuocolo R.
;
Ponsiglione A.;Romeo V.;Imbriaco M.
2020

Abstract

Background: Radiomics have the potential to further increase the value of MRI in prostate cancer management. However, implementation in clinical practice is still far and concerns have been raised regarding the methodological quality of radiomic studies. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the literature to assess the quality of prostate MRI radiomic studies using the radiomics quality score (RQS). Methods: Multiple medical literature archives (PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE) were searched to retrieve original investigations focused on prostate MRI radiomic approaches up to the end of June 2019. Three researchers independently assessed each paper using the RQS. Data from the most experienced researcher were used for descriptive analysis. Inter-rater reproducibility was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) on the total RQS score. Results: 73 studies were included in the analysis. Overall, the average RQS total score was 7.93 ± 5.13 on a maximum of 36 points, with a final average percentage of 23 ± 13%. Among the most critical items, the lack of feature robustness testing strategies and external validation datasets. The ICC resulted poor to moderate, with an average value of 0.57 and 95% Confidence Intervals between 0.44 and 0.69. Conclusions: Current studies on prostate MRI radiomics still lack the quality required to allow their introduction in clinical practice.
2020
Prostate MRI radiomics: A systematic review and radiomic quality score assessment / Stanzione, A.; Gambardella, M.; Cuocolo, R.; Ponsiglione, A.; Romeo, V.; Imbriaco, M.. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY. - ISSN 0720-048X. - 129:(2020), p. 109095. [10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109095]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Prostate MRI radiomics A systematic review and radiomic quality score assessment.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 464.06 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
464.06 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/808935
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 84
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 81
social impact