nach oben

Erschienen in:

23.11.2021 | Cardiac

Cardiac CT and MRI radiomics: systematic review of the literature and radiomics quality score assessment

verfasst von: Andrea Ponsiglione, Arnaldo Stanzione, Renato Cuocolo, Raffaele Ascione, Michele Gambardella, Marco De Giorgi, Carmela Nappi, Alberto Cuocolo, Massimo Imbriaco

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 4/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To systematically review and evaluate the methodological quality of studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) radiomics for cardiac applications.

Methods

Multiple medical literature archives (PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE) were systematically searched to retrieve original studies focused on cardiac MRI and CT radiomics applications. Two researchers in consensus assessed each investigation using the radiomics quality score (RQS). Subgroup analyses were performed to assess whether the total RQS varied according to study aim, journal quartile, imaging modality, and first author category.

Results

From a total of 1961 items, 53 articles were finally included in the analysis. Overall, the studies reached a median total RQS of 7 (IQR, 4–12), corresponding to a percentage score of 19.4% (IQR, 11.1–33.3%). Item scores were particularly low due to lack of prospective design, cost-effectiveness analysis, and open science. Median RQS percentage score was significantly higher in papers where the first author was a medical doctor and in those published on first quartile journals.

Conclusions

The overall methodological quality of radiomics studies in cardiac MRI and CT is still lacking. A higher degree of standardization of the radiomics workflow and higher publication standards for studies are required to allow its translation into clinical practice.

Key Points

• RQS has been recently proposed for the overall assessment of the methodological quality of radiomics-based studies.

• The 53 included studies on cardiac MRI and CT radiomics applications reached a median total RQS of 7 (IQR, 4–12), corresponding to a percentage of 19.4% (IQR, 11.1–33.3%).

• A more standardized methodology in the radiomics workflow is needed, especially in terms of study design, validation, and open science, in order to translate the results to clinical applications.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Sollini M, Antunovic L, Chiti A, Kirienko M (2019) Towards clinical application of image mining: a systematic review on artificial intelligence and radiomics. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:2656–2672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04372-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151169CrossRefPubMed

Ashrafinia S, Dalaie P, Sadaghiani MS et al (2019) Radiomics analysis of clinical myocardial perfusion stress SPECT images to identify coronary artery calcification. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:S17–S18

Ma Q, Ma Y, Wang X et al (2021) A radiomic nomogram for prediction of major adverse cardiac events in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Radiol 31:1140–1150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07176-yCrossRefPubMed

Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ, et al (2020) Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2020 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 141. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000757

Selvanayagam JB (2016) Non-invasive cardiac imaging: past, present and future. Hear Lung Circ 25:755–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2016.04.005CrossRef

Cuocolo R, Ponsiglione A, Dell’Aversana S et al (2020) The cardiac conundrum: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of authorship in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging studies. Insights Imaging 11:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00850-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Raisi-Estabragh Z, Izquierdo C, Campello VM et al (2020) Cardiac magnetic resonance radiomics: basic principles and clinical perspectives. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 21:349–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeaa028CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ordovas KG, Seo Y (2020) Artificial intelligence pipeline for risk prediction in cardiovascular imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 13:e010427. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.120.010427CrossRefPubMed

10.

Hassani C, Saremi F, Varghese BA, Duddalwar V (2020) Myocardial radiomics in cardiac MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 214:536–545. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.21986CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kolossváry M, Kellermayer M, Merkely B, Maurovich-Horvat P (2018) Cardiac computed tomography radiomics: a comprehensive review on radiomic techniques. J Thorac Imaging 33:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000268CrossRefPubMed

12.

Murgia A, Balestrieri A, Crivelli P, et al (2020) Cardiac computed tomography radiomics: an emerging tool for the non-invasive assessment of coronary atherosclerosis. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 10:2005–2017. https://doi.org/10.21037/cdt-20-156

13.

Xu P, Xue Y, Schoepf UJ et al (2021) Radiomics: the next frontier of cardiac computed tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 14:e011747. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.120.011747CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lambin P, Leijenaar RTH, Deist TM et al (2017) Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14:749–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141CrossRefPubMed

15.

Recht MP, Dewey M, Dreyer K et al (2020) Integrating artificial intelligence into the clinical practice of radiology: challenges and recommendations. Eur Radiol 30:3576–3584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06672-5CrossRefPubMed

16.

Wakabayashi T, Ouhmich F, Gonzalez-Cabrera C et al (2019) Radiomics in hepatocellular carcinoma: a quantitative review. Hepatol Int 13:546–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-019-09973-0CrossRefPubMed

17.

Won SY, Park YW, Ahn SS et al (2021) Quality assessment of meningioma radiomics studies: bridging the gap between exploratory research and clinical applications. Eur J Radiol 138:109673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109673CrossRefPubMed

18.

Stanzione A, Gambardella M, Cuocolo R et al (2020) Prostate MRI radiomics: a systematic review and radiomic quality score assessment. Eur J Radiol 129:109095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109095CrossRefPubMed

19.

Spadarella G, Calareso G, Garanzini E et al (2021) MRI based radiomics in nasopharyngeal cancer: systematic review and perspectives using radiomic quality score (RQS) assessment. Eur J Radiol 140:109744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109744CrossRefPubMed

20.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535–b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Ugga L, Perillo T, Cuocolo R, et al (2021) Meningioma MRI radiomics and machine learning: systematic review, quality score assessment, and meta-analysis. Neuroradiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-021-02668-0

22.

R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

23.

Baessler B, Mannil M, Oebel S et al (2018) Subacute and chronic left ventricular myocardial scar: accuracy of texture analysis on nonenhanced cine MR images. Radiology 286:103–112. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170213CrossRefPubMed

24.

Nam K, Suh YJ, Han K et al (2019) Value of computed tomography radiomic features for differentiation of periprosthetic mass in patients with suspected prosthetic valve obstruction. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 12:e009496. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.119.009496CrossRefPubMed

25.

Baessler B, Luecke C, Lurz J et al (2019) Cardiac MRI and texture analysis of myocardial T1 and T2 maps in myocarditis with acute versus chronic symptoms of heart failure. Radiology 292:608–617. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190101CrossRefPubMed

26.

van Hamersvelt RW, Zreik M, Voskuil M et al (2019) Deep learning analysis of left ventricular myocardium in CT angiographic intermediate-degree coronary stenosis improves the diagnostic accuracy for identification of functionally significant stenosis. Eur Radiol 29:2350–2359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5822-3CrossRefPubMed

27.

Neisius U, El-Rewaidy H, Nakamori S et al (2019) Radiomic analysis of myocardial native T1 imaging discriminates between hypertensive heart disease and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 12:1946–1954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.11.024CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Park JE, Kim D, Kim HS et al (2020) Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement. Eur Radiol 30:523–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06360-zCrossRefPubMed

29.

Zhong J, Hu Y, Si L et al (2021) A systematic review of radiomics in osteosarcoma: utilizing radiomics quality score as a tool promoting clinical translation. Eur Radiol 31:1526–1535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07221-wCrossRefPubMed

30.

Mackin D, Fave X, Zhang L et al (2015) Measuring computed tomography scanner variability of radiomics features. Invest Radiol 50:757–765. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000180CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Ursprung S, Beer L, Bruining A et al (2020) Radiomics of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in renal cell carcinoma—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 30:3558–3566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06666-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, McShane LM, Cavenagh MM, Altman DG (2018) Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): an abridged explanation and elaboration. J Natl Cancer Inst 110:803–811. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy088CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2020) ESR statement on the validation of imaging biomarkers. Insights Imaging 11:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00872-9CrossRef

34.

Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement. BMC Med 13:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0241-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

van Timmeren JE, Cester D, Tanadini-Lang S, Alkadhi H, Baessler B (2020) Radiomics in medical imaging—“how-to” guide and critical reflection. Insights Imaging 11:91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00887-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Clark K, Vendt B, Smith K et al (2013) The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J Digit Imaging 26:1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-013-9622-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T (2015) U-Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. arXiv:1505.04597

Titel: Cardiac CT and MRI radiomics: systematic review of the literature and radiomics quality score assessment
verfasst von: Andrea Ponsiglione
Arnaldo Stanzione
Renato Cuocolo
Raffaele Ascione
Michele Gambardella
Marco De Giorgi
Carmela Nappi
Alberto Cuocolo
Massimo Imbriaco
Publikationsdatum: 23.11.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08375-x

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Cardiac CT and MRI radiomics: systematic review of the literature and radiomics quality score assessment