nach oben

Erschienen in:

26.07.2019 | Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement

verfasst von: Ji Eun Park, Donghyun Kim, Ho Sung Kim, Seo Young Park, Jung Youn Kim, Se Jin Cho, Jae Ho Shin, Jeong Hoon Kim

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 1/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate radiomics studies according to radiomics quality score (RQS) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) to provide objective measurement of radiomics research.

Materials and methods

PubMed and Embase were searched for studies published in high clinical imaging journals until December 2018 using the terms “radiomics” and “radiogenomics.” Studies were scored against the items in the RQS and TRIPOD guidelines. Subgroup analyses were performed for journal type (clinical vs. imaging), intended use (diagnostic vs. prognostic), and imaging modality (CT vs. MRI), and articles were compared using Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney analysis.

Results

Seventy-seven articles were included. The mean RQS score was 26.1% of the maximum (9.4 out of 36). The RQS was low in demonstration of clinical utility (19.5%), test-retest analysis (6.5%), prospective study (3.9%), and open science (3.9%). None of the studies conducted a phantom or cost-effectiveness analysis. The adherence rate for TRIPOD was 57.8% (mean) and was particularly low in reporting title (2.6%), stating study objective in abstract and introduction (7.8% and 16.9%), blind assessment of outcome (14.3%), sample size (6.5%), and missing data (11.7%) categories. Studies in clinical journals scored higher and more frequently adopted external validation than imaging journals.

Conclusions

The overall scientific quality and reporting of radiomics studies is insufficient. Scientific improvements need to be made to feature reproducibility, analysis of clinical utility, and open science categories. Reporting of study objectives, blind assessment, sample size, and missing data is deemed to be necessary.

Key Points

• The overall scientific quality and reporting of radiomics studies is insufficient.

• The RQS was low in demonstration of clinical utility, test-retest analysis, prospective study, and open science.

• Room for improvement was shown in TRIPOD in stating study objective in abstract and introduction, blind assessment of outcome, sample size, and missing data categories.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577CrossRefPubMed

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

Sanduleanu S, Woodruff HC, de Jong EEC et al (2018) Tracking tumor biology with radiomics: a systematic review utilizing a radiomics quality score. Radiother Oncol 127:349–360CrossRefPubMed

O'Connor JP, Aboagye EO, Adams JE et al (2017) Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14:169–186CrossRefPubMed

Sung NS, Crowley WF Jr, Genel M et al (2003) Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 289:1278–1287CrossRefPubMed

Choi YJ, Chung MS, Koo HJ, Park JE, Yoon HM, Park SH (2016) Does the reporting quality of diagnostic test accuracy studies, as defined by STARD 2015, affect citation? Korean J Radiol 17:706–714CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Waterton JC, Pylkkanen L (2012) Qualification of imaging biomarkers for oncology drug development. Eur J Cancer 48:409–415CrossRefPubMed

Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB et al (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 162:W1–W73

Heus P, Damen JAAG, Pajouheshnia R et al (2018) Poor reporting of multivariable prediction model studies: towards a targeted implementation strategy of the TRIPOD statement. BMC Med 16:120CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536CrossRefPubMed

11.

Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT et al (2014) Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 5:4006CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hawkins S, Wang H, Liu Y et al (2016) Predicting malignant nodules from screening CT scans. J Thorac Oncol 11:2120–2128CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Huang Y, Liu Z, He L et al (2016) Radiomics signature: a potential biomarker for the prediction of disease-free survival in early-stage (I or II) non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 281:947–957CrossRefPubMed

14.

Huang YQ, Liang CH, He L et al (2016) Development and validation of a radiomics nomogram for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 34:2157–2164CrossRefPubMed

15.

Kickingereder P, Bonekamp D, Nowosielski M et al (2016) Radiogenomics of glioblastoma: machine learning-based classification of molecular characteristics by using multiparametric and multiregional MR imaging features. Radiology 281:907–918CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kickingereder P, Burth S, Wick A et al (2016) Radiomic profiling of glioblastoma: identifying an imaging predictor of patient survival with improved performance over established clinical and radiologic risk models. Radiology 280:880–889CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kickingereder P, Gotz M, Muschelli J et al (2016) Large-scale Radiomic profiling of recurrent glioblastoma identifies an imaging predictor for stratifying anti-angiogenic treatment response. Clin Cancer Res 22:5765–5771CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Li H, Zhu Y, Burnside ES et al (2016) MR imaging radiomics signatures for predicting the risk of breast cancer recurrence as given by research versions of MammaPrint, oncotype DX, and PAM50 gene assays. Radiology 281:382–391CrossRefPubMed

19.

Nie K, Shi L, Chen Q et al (2016) Rectal cancer: assessment of neoadjuvant chemoradiation outcome based on radiomics of multiparametric MRI. Clin Cancer Res 22:5256–5264CrossRefPubMed

20.

Coroller TP, Agrawal V, Huynh E et al (2017) Radiomic-based pathological response prediction from primary tumors and lymph nodes in NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol 12:467–476CrossRefPubMed

21.

Grossmann P, Narayan V, Chang K et al (2017) Quantitative imaging biomarkers for risk stratification of patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Neuro Oncol 19:1688–1697CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Hu LS, Ning S, Eschbacher JM et al (2017) Radiogenomics to characterize regional genetic heterogeneity in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 19:128–137CrossRefPubMed

23.

Liu TT, Achrol AS, Mitchell LA et al (2017) Magnetic resonance perfusion image features uncover an angiogenic subgroup of glioblastoma patients with poor survival and better response to antiangiogenic treatment. Neuro Oncol 19:997–1007PubMed

24.

Liu Z, Zhang XY, Shi YJ et al (2017) Radiomics analysis for evaluation of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 23:7253–7262CrossRefPubMed

25.

Lohmann P, Stoffels G, Ceccon G et al (2017) Radiation injury vs. recurrent brain metastasis: combining textural feature radiomics analysis and standard parameters may increase (18)F-FET PET accuracy without dynamic scans. Eur Radiol 27:2916–2927CrossRefPubMed

26.

Rios Velazquez E, Parmar C, Liu Y et al (2017) Somatic mutations drive distinct imaging phenotypes in lung cancer. Cancer Res 77:3922–3930CrossRefPubMed

27.

Song SH, Park H, Lee G et al (2017) Imaging phenotyping using Radiomics to predict micropapillary pattern within lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 12:624–632CrossRefPubMed

28.

Wang J, Wu CJ, Bao ML, Zhang J, Wang XN, Zhang YD (2017) Machine learning-based analysis of MR radiomics can help to improve the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2 in clinically relevant prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 27:4082–4090CrossRefPubMed

29.

Wu S, Zheng J, Li Y et al (2017) A radiomics nomogram for the preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in bladder cancer. Clin Cancer Res 23:6904–6911CrossRefPubMed

30.

Yu J, Shi Z, Lian Y et al (2017) Noninvasive IDH1 mutation estimation based on a quantitative radiomics approach for grade II glioma. Eur Radiol 27:3509–3522CrossRefPubMed

31.

Yuan M, Zhang YD, Pu XH et al (2017) Comparison of a radiomic biomarker with volumetric analysis for decoding tumour phenotypes of lung adenocarcinoma with different disease-specific survival. Eur Radiol 27:4857–4865CrossRefPubMed

32.

Zhang B, Tian J, Dong D et al (2017) Radiomics features of multiparametric MRI as novel prognostic factors in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 23:4259–4269CrossRefPubMed

33.

Zhou H, Vallieres M, Bai HX et al (2017) MRI features predict survival and molecular markers in diffuse lower-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol 19:862–870CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Akbari H, Bakas S, Pisapia JM et al (2018) In vivo evaluation of EGFRvIII mutation in primary glioblastoma patients via complex multiparametric MRI signature. Neuro Oncol 20:1068–1079CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Bae S, Choi YS, Ahn SS et al (2018) Radiomic MRI phenotyping of glioblastoma: improving survival prediction. Radiology 289:797–806CrossRefPubMed

36.

Beukinga RJ, Hulshoff JB, Mul VEM et al (2018) Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy with baseline and restaging (18)F-FDG PET imaging biomarkers in patients with esophageal cancer. Radiology 287:983–992CrossRefPubMed

37.

Bickelhaupt S, Jaeger PF, Laun FB et al (2018) Radiomics based on adapted diffusion kurtosis imaging helps to clarify most mammographic findings suspicious for cancer. Radiology 287:761–770CrossRefPubMed

38.

Chen T, Ning Z, Xu L et al (2018) Radiomics nomogram for predicting the malignant potential of gastrointestinal stromal tumours preoperatively. Eur Radiol 29:1074–1082

39.

Chen Y, Chen TW, Wu CQ et al (2018) Radiomics model of contrast-enhanced computed tomography for predicting the recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Eur Radiol 29:4408–4417

40.

Cui Y, Yang X, Shi Z et al (2018) Radiomics analysis of multiparametric MRI for prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 29:1211–1220

41.

Dong F, Li Q, Xu D et al (2018) Differentiation between pilocytic astrocytoma and glioblastoma: a decision tree model using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging-derived quantitative radiomic features. Eur Radiol 29:3968–3975

42.

Dong Y, Feng Q, Yang W et al (2018) Preoperative prediction of sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer based on radiomics of T2-weighted fat-suppression and diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 28:582–591CrossRefPubMed

43.

Guo J, Liu Z, Shen C et al (2018) MR-based radiomics signature in differentiating ocular adnexal lymphoma from idiopathic orbital inflammation. Eur Radiol 28:3872–3881CrossRefPubMed

44.

Horvat N, Veeraraghavan H, Khan M et al (2018) MR imaging of rectal cancer: radiomics analysis to assess treatment response after neoadjuvant therapy. Radiology 287:833–843CrossRefPubMed

45.

Hu HT, Wang Z, Huang XW et al (2018) Ultrasound-based radiomics score: a potential biomarker for the prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol 29:2890–2901

46.

Kang D, Park JE, Kim YH et al (2018) Diffusion radiomics as a diagnostic model for atypical manifestation of primary central nervous system lymphoma: development and multicenter external validation. Neuro Oncol 20:1251–1261CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Kickingereder P, Neuberger U, Bonekamp D et al (2018) Radiomic subtyping improves disease stratification beyond key molecular, clinical, and standard imaging characteristics in patients with glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 20:848–857CrossRefPubMed

48.

Kim JY, Park JE, Jo Y et al (2018) Incorporating diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MRI into a radiomics model improves diagnostic performance for pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients. Neuro Oncol 21:404–414

49.

Kniep HC, Madesta F, Schneider T et al (2018) Radiomics of brain MRI: utility in prediction of metastatic tumor type. Radiology 180946

50.

Multiparametric ultrasomics of significant liver fibrosis: a machine learning-based analysis. Eur Radiol 29:1496–1506

51.

Li Y, Liu X, Qian Z et al (2018) Genotype prediction of ATRX mutation in lower-grade gliomas using an MRI radiomics signature. Eur Radiol 28:2960–2968CrossRefPubMed

52.

Li Y, Liu X, Xu K et al (2018) MRI features can predict EGFR expression in lower grade gliomas: a voxel-based radiomic analysis. Eur Radiol 28:356–362CrossRefPubMed

53.

Li ZC, Bai H, Sun Q et al (2018) Multiregional radiomics features from multiparametric MRI for prediction of MGMT methylation status in glioblastoma multiforme: a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 28:3640–3650CrossRefPubMed

54.

Liang W, Yang P, Huang R et al (2018) A combined nomogram model to preoperatively predict histologic grade in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Cancer Res 25:584–594

55.

Liu H, Zhang C, Wang L et al (2018) MRI radiomics analysis for predicting preoperative synchronous distant metastasis in patients with rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 29:4418–4426

56.

Lu CF, Hsu FT, Hsieh KL et al (2018) Machine learning-based radiomics for molecular subtyping of gliomas. Clin Cancer Res 24:4429–4436CrossRefPubMed

57.

Lv W, Yuan Q, Wang Q et al (2018) Robustness versus disease differentiation when varying parameter settings in radiomics features: application to nasopharyngeal PET/CT. Eur Radiol 28:3245–3254CrossRefPubMed

58.

Meng X, Xia W, Xie P et al (2018) Preoperative radiomic signature based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for noninvasive evaluation of biological characteristics in rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 29:3200–3209

59.

Naganawa S, Enooku K, Tateishi R et al (2018) Imaging prediction of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis using computed tomography texture analysis. Eur Radiol 28:3050–3058CrossRefPubMed

60.

Niu J, Zhang S, Ma S et al (2018) Preoperative prediction of cavernous sinus invasion by pituitary adenomas using a radiomics method based on magnetic resonance images. Eur Radiol 29:1625–1634

61.

Ortiz-Ramón R, Larroza A, Ruiz-España S, Arana E, Moratal D (2018) Classifying brain metastases by their primary site of origin using a radiomics approach based on texture analysis: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 28:4514–4523

62.

Park YW, Oh J, You SC et al (2018) Radiomics and machine learning may accurately predict the grade and histological subtype in meningiomas using conventional and diffusion tensor imaging. Eur Radiol 29:4068–4076

63.

She Y, Zhang L, Zhu H et al (2018) The predictive value of CT-based radiomics in differentiating indolent from invasive lung adenocarcinoma in patients with pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol 28:5121–5128CrossRefPubMed

64.

Shi Z, Zhu C, Degnan AJ et al (2018) Identification of high-risk plaque features in intracranial atherosclerosis: initial experience using a radiomic approach. Eur Radiol 28:3912–3921CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

65.

Su C, Jiang J, Zhang S et al (2018) Radiomics based on multicontrast MRI can precisely differentiate among glioma subtypes and predict tumour-proliferative behaviour. Eur Radiol 29:1986–1996

66.

Suh HB, Choi YS, Bae S et al (2018) Primary central nervous system lymphoma and atypical glioblastoma: differentiation using radiomics approach. Eur Radiol 28:3832–3839CrossRefPubMed

67.

Sun H, Chen Y, Huang Q et al (2018) Psychoradiologic utility of MR imaging for diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a radiomics analysis. Radiology 287:620–630CrossRefPubMed

68.

Truhn D, Schrading S, Haarburger C, Schneider H, Merhof D, Kuhl C (2018) Radiomic versus convolutional neural networks analysis for classification of contrast-enhancing lesions at multiparametric breast MRI. Radiology 181352

69.

Wu M, Tan H, Gao F et al (2018) Predicting the grade of hepatocellular carcinoma based on non-contrastenhanced MRI radiomics signature. Eur Radiol 29:2802–2811

70.

Yang L, Dong D, Fang M et al (2018) Can CT-based radiomics signature predict KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutations in colorectal cancer? Eur Radiol 28:2058–2067CrossRefPubMed

71.

Yin P, Mao N, Zhao C et al (2018) Comparison of radiomics machine-learning classifiers and feature selection for differentiation of sacral chordoma and sacral giant cell tumour based on 3D computed tomography features. Eur Radiol 29:1841–1847

72.

Zhang S, Song G, Zang Y et al (2018) Non-invasive radiomics approach potentially predicts non-functioning pituitary adenomas subtypes before surgery. Eur Radiol 28:3692–3701CrossRefPubMed

73.

Zhang Y, Zhang B, Liang F et al (2018) Radiomics features on noncontrast-enhanced CT scan can precisely classify AVM-related hematomas from other spontaneous intraparenchymal hematoma types. Eur Radiol 29:2157–2165

74.

Zhang Z, Yang J, Ho A et al (2018) A predictive model for distinguishing radiation necrosis from tumour progression after gamma knife radiosurgery based on radiomic features from MR images. Eur Radiol 28:2255–2263CrossRefPubMed

75.

Zhu X, Dong D, Chen Z et al (2018) Radiomic signature as a diagnostic factor for histologic subtype classification of non-small cell lung cancer. Eur Radiol 28:2772–2778CrossRefPubMed

76.

Zinn PO, Singh SK, Kotrotsou A et al (2018) A coclinical radiogenomic validation study: conserved magnetic resonance radiomic appearance of periostin-expressing glioblastoma in patients and xenograft models. Clin Cancer Res 24:6288–6299CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

77.

Choe J, Lee SM, Do KH et al (2019) Prognostic value of radiomic analysis of iodine overlay maps from dual-energy computed tomography in patients with resectable lung cancer. Eur Radiol 29:915–923CrossRefPubMed

78.

Hu T, Wang S, Huang L et al (2019) A clinical-radiomics nomogram for the preoperative prediction of lung metastasis in colorectal cancer patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol 29:439–449CrossRefPubMed

79.

Ji GW, Zhang YD, Zhang H et al (2019) Biliary tract cancer at CT: a radiomics-based model to predict lymph node metastasis and survival outcomes. Radiology 290:90–98CrossRefPubMed

80.

Kontos D, Winham SJ, Oustimov A et al (2019) Radiomic phenotypes of mammographic parenchymal complexity: toward augmenting breast density in breast cancer risk assessment. Radiology 290:41–49CrossRefPubMed

81.

Qu J, Shen C, Qin J et al (2019) The MR radiomic signature can predict preoperative lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer. Eur Radiol 29:906–914CrossRefPubMed

82.

Tan X, Ma Z, Yan L, Ye W, Liu Z, Liang C (2019) Radiomics nomogram outperforms size criteria in discriminating lymph node metastasis in resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur Radiol 29:392–400CrossRefPubMed

83.

Wei J, Yang G, Hao X et al (2019) A multi-sequence and habitat-based MRI radiomics signature for preoperative prediction of MGMT promoter methylation in astrocytomas with prognostic implication. Eur Radiol 29:877–888CrossRefPubMed

84.

Bonekamp D, Kohl S, Wiesenfarth M et al (2018) Radiomic machine learning for characterization of prostate lesions with MRI: comparison to ADC values. Radiology 289:128–137CrossRefPubMed

85.

Park H, Lim Y, Ko ES et al (2018) Radiomics signature on magnetic resonance imaging: association with disease-free survival in patients with invasive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 24:4705–4714CrossRefPubMed

86.

Sun R, Limkin EJ, Vakalopoulou M et al (2018) A radiomics approach to assess tumour-infiltrating CD8 cells and response to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy: an imaging biomarker, retrospective multicohort study. Lancet Oncol 19:1180–1191CrossRefPubMed

87.

Wang K, Lu X, Zhou H et al (2018) Deep learning radiomics of shear wave elastography significantly improved diagnostic performance for assessing liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B: a prospective multicentre study. Gut 68:729–741

88.

Kessler LG, Barnhart HX, Buckler AJ et al (2015) The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions. Stat Methods Med Res 24:9–26CrossRefPubMed

89.

McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W et al (2005) Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1180–1184CrossRefPubMed

90.

Korevaar DA, van Enst WA, Spijker R, Bossuyt PM, Hooft L (2014) Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD. Evid Based Med 19:47–54CrossRefPubMed

91.

Korevaar DA, Wang J, van Enst WA et al (2015) Reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: some improvements after 10 years of STARD. Radiology 274:781–789CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement
verfasst von: Ji Eun Park
Donghyun Kim
Ho Sung Kim
Seo Young Park
Jung Youn Kim
Se Jin Cho
Jae Ho Shin
Jeong Hoon Kim
Publikationsdatum: 26.07.2019
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 1/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06360-z

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

23.04.2024 | Pankreaskarzinom | Nachrichten

Update Radiologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

Mitral annular plane systolic excursion by cardiac MR is an easy tool for optimized prognosis assessment in ST-elevation myocardial infarction

CT iterative reconstruction algorithms: a task-based image quality assessment

Diffusion-weighted MRI of estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer: association between intratumoral heterogeneity and recurrence risk

Practical guide to quantification of hepatic iron with MRI

Intraobserver and interobserver reliability in sonographic size measurements of gallbladder polyps

Patellofemoral morphology measurements and their associations with tibiofemoral osteoarthritis-related structural damage: exploratory analysis on the osteoarthritis initiative

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Update Radiologie