Tangqi Shi, Aaron Kujawa, Christian Linares, Tom Vercauteren, Thomas C Booth
{"title":"Automated longitudinal treatment response assessment of brain tumors: a systematic review.","authors":"Tangqi Shi, Aaron Kujawa, Christian Linares, Tom Vercauteren, Thomas C Booth","doi":"10.1093/neuonc/noaf037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Longitudinal assessment of tumor burden using imaging helps to determine whether there has been a response to treatment both in trial and real-world settings. From a patient and clinical trial perspective alike, the time to develop disease progression, or progression-free survival, is an important endpoint. However, manual longitudinal response assessment is time-consuming and subject to interobserver variability. Automated response assessment techniques based on machine learning (ML) promise to enhance accuracy and reduce reliance on manual measurement. This paper evaluates the quality and performance accuracy of recently published studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines and the CLAIM checklist, we searched PUBMED, EMBASE, and Web of Science for articles (January 2010-November 2024). Our PROSPERO-registered study (CRD42024496126) focused on adult brain tumor automated treatment response assessment studies using ML methodologies. We determined the extent of development and validation of the tools and employed QUADAS-2 for study appraisal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty (including seventeen retrospective and three prospective) studies were included. Data extracted included information on the dataset, automated response assessment including pertinent steps within the pipeline (index tests), and reference standards. Only limited conclusions are appropriate given the high bias risk and applicability concerns (particularly regarding reference standards and patient selection), and the low-level evidence. There was insufficient homogenous data for meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study highlights the potential of ML to improve brain tumor longitudinal treatment response assessment. Interpretation is limited due to study bias and limited evidence of generalizability. Prospective studies with external datasets validating the latest neuro-oncology criteria are now required.</p>","PeriodicalId":19377,"journal":{"name":"Neuro-oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuro-oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noaf037","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Longitudinal assessment of tumor burden using imaging helps to determine whether there has been a response to treatment both in trial and real-world settings. From a patient and clinical trial perspective alike, the time to develop disease progression, or progression-free survival, is an important endpoint. However, manual longitudinal response assessment is time-consuming and subject to interobserver variability. Automated response assessment techniques based on machine learning (ML) promise to enhance accuracy and reduce reliance on manual measurement. This paper evaluates the quality and performance accuracy of recently published studies.
Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines and the CLAIM checklist, we searched PUBMED, EMBASE, and Web of Science for articles (January 2010-November 2024). Our PROSPERO-registered study (CRD42024496126) focused on adult brain tumor automated treatment response assessment studies using ML methodologies. We determined the extent of development and validation of the tools and employed QUADAS-2 for study appraisal.
Results: Twenty (including seventeen retrospective and three prospective) studies were included. Data extracted included information on the dataset, automated response assessment including pertinent steps within the pipeline (index tests), and reference standards. Only limited conclusions are appropriate given the high bias risk and applicability concerns (particularly regarding reference standards and patient selection), and the low-level evidence. There was insufficient homogenous data for meta-analysis.
Conclusion: The study highlights the potential of ML to improve brain tumor longitudinal treatment response assessment. Interpretation is limited due to study bias and limited evidence of generalizability. Prospective studies with external datasets validating the latest neuro-oncology criteria are now required.
期刊介绍:
Neuro-Oncology, the official journal of the Society for Neuro-Oncology, has been published monthly since January 2010. Affiliated with the Japan Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology, it is a global leader in the field.
The journal is committed to swiftly disseminating high-quality information across all areas of neuro-oncology. It features peer-reviewed articles, reviews, symposia on various topics, abstracts from annual meetings, and updates from neuro-oncology societies worldwide.