基于 MRI 的放射学模型用于直肠癌术前预测壁外静脉侵犯:系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Clinical Imaging Pub Date : 2024-04-07 DOI:10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110146
Yingying Liang , Yaxuan Wei , Fan Xu , Xinhua Wei
{"title":"基于 MRI 的放射学模型用于直肠癌术前预测壁外静脉侵犯:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Yingying Liang ,&nbsp;Yaxuan Wei ,&nbsp;Fan Xu ,&nbsp;Xinhua Wei","doi":"10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To estimate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomic models in detecting the extramural venous invasion (EMVI) of rectal cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Appropriate studies in multiple electronic databases were systematically retrieved. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) were used to evaluate the eligible studies' methodology quality. Summary accuracy metrics were calculated, and the publication bias was detected using Deek's funnel plot. The sensitivity and meta-regression analysis were performed to investigate the causes of heterogeneity.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>For the seven eligible studies, which included 1175 patients, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.80 (95 % CI, 0.70–0.88), 0.89 (95 % CI, 0.84–0.92), 7.0 (95 % CI, 4.7, 10.4), 0.22 (95 % CI, 0.14, 0.34), and 32 (95 % CI, 16, 65), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.91 (95 % CI, 0.88, 0.93). Moderate heterogeneity was found due to I<sup>2</sup> values of 38.63 % and 32.29 % in sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Meta-regression analysis suggested that the patient enrollment, number of patients, segmentation method, and RQS score were the source of the heterogeneity. The head-to-head analysis suggested that radiomics model had a higher sensitivity for detection of EMVI than subjective evaluation by radiologist (0.47 vs. 0.73, p ≤ 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our study suggests that MRI-based radiomic models have good diagnostic value in detecting EMVI for rectal cancer patients. Nevertheless, more prospective and high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed in the future to validate these results.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50680,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"MRI-based radiomic models for the preoperative prediction of extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Yingying Liang ,&nbsp;Yaxuan Wei ,&nbsp;Fan Xu ,&nbsp;Xinhua Wei\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To estimate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomic models in detecting the extramural venous invasion (EMVI) of rectal cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Appropriate studies in multiple electronic databases were systematically retrieved. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) were used to evaluate the eligible studies' methodology quality. Summary accuracy metrics were calculated, and the publication bias was detected using Deek's funnel plot. The sensitivity and meta-regression analysis were performed to investigate the causes of heterogeneity.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>For the seven eligible studies, which included 1175 patients, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.80 (95 % CI, 0.70–0.88), 0.89 (95 % CI, 0.84–0.92), 7.0 (95 % CI, 4.7, 10.4), 0.22 (95 % CI, 0.14, 0.34), and 32 (95 % CI, 16, 65), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.91 (95 % CI, 0.88, 0.93). Moderate heterogeneity was found due to I<sup>2</sup> values of 38.63 % and 32.29 % in sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Meta-regression analysis suggested that the patient enrollment, number of patients, segmentation method, and RQS score were the source of the heterogeneity. The head-to-head analysis suggested that radiomics model had a higher sensitivity for detection of EMVI than subjective evaluation by radiologist (0.47 vs. 0.73, p ≤ 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our study suggests that MRI-based radiomic models have good diagnostic value in detecting EMVI for rectal cancer patients. Nevertheless, more prospective and high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed in the future to validate these results.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Imaging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899707124000767\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899707124000767","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

材料和方法系统检索多个电子数据库中的相关研究。采用诊断准确性研究质量评估2和放射组学质量评分(RQS)来评估符合条件的研究的方法质量。计算准确性指标摘要,并使用迪克漏斗图检测发表偏倚。结果在纳入 1175 名患者的 7 项符合条件的研究中,汇总的灵敏度、特异性、阳性似然比、阴性似然比和诊断几率比分别为 0.80(95 % CI,0.70-0.88)、0.89(95 % CI,0.84-0.92)、7.0(95 % CI,4.7-10.4)、0.22(95 % CI,0.14-0.34)和 32(95 % CI,16-65)。接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.91(95 % CI,0.88,0.93)。灵敏度和特异性的 I2 值分别为 38.63 % 和 32.29 %,因此存在中度异质性。元回归分析表明,患者入组、患者人数、分割方法和 RQS 评分是异质性的来源。头对头分析表明,放射组学模型检测EMVI的灵敏度高于放射科医生的主观评价(0.47 vs. 0.73,p ≤ 0.001)。尽管如此,未来还需要更多样本量更大的前瞻性高质量研究来验证这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
MRI-based radiomic models for the preoperative prediction of extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To estimate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomic models in detecting the extramural venous invasion (EMVI) of rectal cancer.

Materials and methods

Appropriate studies in multiple electronic databases were systematically retrieved. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) were used to evaluate the eligible studies' methodology quality. Summary accuracy metrics were calculated, and the publication bias was detected using Deek's funnel plot. The sensitivity and meta-regression analysis were performed to investigate the causes of heterogeneity.

Results

For the seven eligible studies, which included 1175 patients, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.80 (95 % CI, 0.70–0.88), 0.89 (95 % CI, 0.84–0.92), 7.0 (95 % CI, 4.7, 10.4), 0.22 (95 % CI, 0.14, 0.34), and 32 (95 % CI, 16, 65), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.91 (95 % CI, 0.88, 0.93). Moderate heterogeneity was found due to I2 values of 38.63 % and 32.29 % in sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Meta-regression analysis suggested that the patient enrollment, number of patients, segmentation method, and RQS score were the source of the heterogeneity. The head-to-head analysis suggested that radiomics model had a higher sensitivity for detection of EMVI than subjective evaluation by radiologist (0.47 vs. 0.73, p ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that MRI-based radiomic models have good diagnostic value in detecting EMVI for rectal cancer patients. Nevertheless, more prospective and high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed in the future to validate these results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Imaging
Clinical Imaging 医学-核医学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
265
审稿时长
35 days
期刊介绍: The mission of Clinical Imaging is to publish, in a timely manner, the very best radiology research from the United States and around the world with special attention to the impact of medical imaging on patient care. The journal''s publications cover all imaging modalities, radiology issues related to patients, policy and practice improvements, and clinically-oriented imaging physics and informatics. The journal is a valuable resource for practicing radiologists, radiologists-in-training and other clinicians with an interest in imaging. Papers are carefully peer-reviewed and selected by our experienced subject editors who are leading experts spanning the range of imaging sub-specialties, which include: -Body Imaging- Breast Imaging- Cardiothoracic Imaging- Imaging Physics and Informatics- Molecular Imaging and Nuclear Medicine- Musculoskeletal and Emergency Imaging- Neuroradiology- Practice, Policy & Education- Pediatric Imaging- Vascular and Interventional Radiology
期刊最新文献
Women in Radiology Education (WIRED): An actionable step towards closing the gender gap in radiology. Contents Heart lung axis in acute pulmonary embolism: Role of CT in risk stratification Clinical experience on the limited role of ultrasound for breast cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations carriers aged 30–39 years Factors affecting mammogram breast cancer surveillance effectiveness in the ipsilateral and contralateral breast
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1