Nima Broomand Lomer MD , Mohammad Amin Ashoobi MD , Amir Mahmoud Ahmadzadeh MD , Houman Sotoudeh MD , Azadeh Tabari MD , Drew A. Torigian MD
{"title":"MRI-based Radiomics for Predicting Prostate Cancer Grade Groups: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies","authors":"Nima Broomand Lomer MD , Mohammad Amin Ashoobi MD , Amir Mahmoud Ahmadzadeh MD , Houman Sotoudeh MD , Azadeh Tabari MD , Drew A. Torigian MD","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2024.12.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Rationale and Objectives</h3><div>Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer among men and a leading cause of cancer-related mortalities. Radiomics has shown promising performances in the classification of PCa grade group (GG) in several studies. Here, we aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the performance of radiomics in predicting GG in PCa.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>Adhering to PRISMA-DTA guidelines, we included studies employing magnetic resonance imaging–derived radiomics for predicting GG, with histopathologic evaluations as the reference standard. Databases searched included Web of Sciences, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) and METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS) tools were used for quality assessment. Pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Cochran’s Q and I-squared tests assessed heterogeneity, while meta-regression, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis addressed potential sources. Publication bias was evaluated using Deek’s funnel plot, while clinical applicability was assessed with Fagan nomograms and likelihood ratio scattergrams.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Data were extracted from 43 studies involving 9983 patients. Radiomics models demonstrated high accuracy in predicting GG. Patient-based analyses yielded AUCs of 0.93 for GG≥2, 0.91 for GG≥3, and 0.93 for GG≥4. Lesion-based analyses showed AUCs of 0.84 for GG≥2 and 0.89 for GG≥3. Significant heterogeneity was observed, and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity. Radiomics model showed moderate power to exclude and confirm the GG.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Radiomics appears to be an accurate noninvasive tool for predicting PCa GG. It improves the performance of standard diagnostic methods, enhancing clinical decision-making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":"32 6","pages":"Pages 3429-3452"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1076633224009541","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rationale and Objectives
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer among men and a leading cause of cancer-related mortalities. Radiomics has shown promising performances in the classification of PCa grade group (GG) in several studies. Here, we aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the performance of radiomics in predicting GG in PCa.
Materials and Methods
Adhering to PRISMA-DTA guidelines, we included studies employing magnetic resonance imaging–derived radiomics for predicting GG, with histopathologic evaluations as the reference standard. Databases searched included Web of Sciences, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) and METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS) tools were used for quality assessment. Pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Cochran’s Q and I-squared tests assessed heterogeneity, while meta-regression, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis addressed potential sources. Publication bias was evaluated using Deek’s funnel plot, while clinical applicability was assessed with Fagan nomograms and likelihood ratio scattergrams.
Results
Data were extracted from 43 studies involving 9983 patients. Radiomics models demonstrated high accuracy in predicting GG. Patient-based analyses yielded AUCs of 0.93 for GG≥2, 0.91 for GG≥3, and 0.93 for GG≥4. Lesion-based analyses showed AUCs of 0.84 for GG≥2 and 0.89 for GG≥3. Significant heterogeneity was observed, and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity. Radiomics model showed moderate power to exclude and confirm the GG.
Conclusion
Radiomics appears to be an accurate noninvasive tool for predicting PCa GG. It improves the performance of standard diagnostic methods, enhancing clinical decision-making.
基本原理和目的:前列腺癌(PCa)是男性第二大常见癌症,也是癌症相关死亡的主要原因。放射组学在前列腺癌分级组(GG)的多项研究中显示出良好的应用前景。在这里,我们旨在系统回顾和荟萃分析放射组学在预测前列腺癌GG方面的表现。材料和方法:根据PRISMA-DTA指南,我们纳入了使用磁共振成像衍生放射组学预测GG的研究,并以组织病理学评估为参考标准。检索的数据库包括Web of Sciences、PubMed、Scopus和Embase。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估2 (QUADAS-2)和方法学放射组学评分(METRICS)工具进行质量评估。计算敏感性、特异性、似然比、诊断优势比和曲线下面积(AUC)的汇总估计。Cochran’s Q和i²检验评估异质性,而meta回归、亚组分析和敏感性分析则解决了潜在的来源。采用Deek漏斗图评价发表偏倚,采用Fagan诺图和似然比散点图评价临床适用性。结果:数据来自43项研究,涉及9983例患者。放射组学模型在预测GG方面显示出很高的准确性,基于患者的分析得出,GG≥2时auc为0.93,GG≥3时auc为0.91,GG≥4时auc为0.93。基于病变的分析显示,GG≥2的auc为0.84,GG≥3的auc为0.89。观察到显著的异质性,meta回归确定了异质性的来源。结论:放射组学是一种准确的无创预测前列腺癌GG的工具,它提高了标准诊断方法的性能,增强了临床决策。
期刊介绍:
Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.