前列腺癌MRI方法学放射组学评分:EuSoMII放射组学审计组倡议。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING European Radiology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-30 DOI:10.1007/s00330-024-11299-x
Armando Ugo Cavallo, Arnaldo Stanzione, Andrea Ponsiglione, Romina Trotta, Salvatore Claudio Fanni, Samuele Ghezzo, Federica Vernuccio, Michail E Klontzas, Matthaios Triantafyllou, Lorenzo Ugga, Georgios Kalarakis, Roberto Cannella, Renato Cuocolo
{"title":"前列腺癌MRI方法学放射组学评分:EuSoMII放射组学审计组倡议。","authors":"Armando Ugo Cavallo, Arnaldo Stanzione, Andrea Ponsiglione, Romina Trotta, Salvatore Claudio Fanni, Samuele Ghezzo, Federica Vernuccio, Michail E Klontzas, Matthaios Triantafyllou, Lorenzo Ugga, Georgios Kalarakis, Roberto Cannella, Renato Cuocolo","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-11299-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the quality of radiomics research in prostate MRI for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PCa) through the assessment of METhodological RadiomICs (METRICS) score, a new scoring tool recently introduced with the goal of fostering further improvement in radiomics and machine learning methodology.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted from July 1st, 2019, to November 30th, 2023, to identify original investigations assessing MRI-based radiomics in the setting of PCa. Seven readers with varying expertise underwent a quality assessment using METRICS. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess whether the quality score varied according to papers' categories (diagnosis, staging, prognosis, technical) and quality ratings among these latter.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a total of 1106 records, 185 manuscripts were available. Overall, the average METRICS total score was 52% ± 16%. ANOVA and chi-square tests revealed no statistically significant differences between subgroups. Items with the lowest positive scores were adherence to guidelines/checklists (4.9%), handling of confounding factors (14.1%), external testing (15.1%), and the availability of data (15.7%), code (4.3%), and models (1.6%). Conversely, most studies clearly defined patient selection criteria (86.5%), employed a high-quality reference standard (89.2%), and utilized a well-described (85.9%) and clinically applicable (87%) imaging protocol as a radiomics data source.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The quality of MRI-based radiomics research for PCa in recent studies demonstrated good homogeneity and overall moderate quality.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question To evaluate the quality of MRI-based radiomics research for PCa, assessed through the METRICS score. Findings The average METRICS total score was 52%, reflecting moderate quality in MRI-based radiomics research for PCa, with no statistically significant differences between subgroups. Clinical relevance Enhancing the quality of radiomics research can improve diagnostic accuracy for PCa, leading to better patient outcomes and more informed clinical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"1157-1165"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prostate cancer MRI methodological radiomics score: a EuSoMII radiomics auditing group initiative.\",\"authors\":\"Armando Ugo Cavallo, Arnaldo Stanzione, Andrea Ponsiglione, Romina Trotta, Salvatore Claudio Fanni, Samuele Ghezzo, Federica Vernuccio, Michail E Klontzas, Matthaios Triantafyllou, Lorenzo Ugga, Georgios Kalarakis, Roberto Cannella, Renato Cuocolo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00330-024-11299-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the quality of radiomics research in prostate MRI for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PCa) through the assessment of METhodological RadiomICs (METRICS) score, a new scoring tool recently introduced with the goal of fostering further improvement in radiomics and machine learning methodology.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted from July 1st, 2019, to November 30th, 2023, to identify original investigations assessing MRI-based radiomics in the setting of PCa. Seven readers with varying expertise underwent a quality assessment using METRICS. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess whether the quality score varied according to papers' categories (diagnosis, staging, prognosis, technical) and quality ratings among these latter.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a total of 1106 records, 185 manuscripts were available. Overall, the average METRICS total score was 52% ± 16%. ANOVA and chi-square tests revealed no statistically significant differences between subgroups. Items with the lowest positive scores were adherence to guidelines/checklists (4.9%), handling of confounding factors (14.1%), external testing (15.1%), and the availability of data (15.7%), code (4.3%), and models (1.6%). Conversely, most studies clearly defined patient selection criteria (86.5%), employed a high-quality reference standard (89.2%), and utilized a well-described (85.9%) and clinically applicable (87%) imaging protocol as a radiomics data source.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The quality of MRI-based radiomics research for PCa in recent studies demonstrated good homogeneity and overall moderate quality.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question To evaluate the quality of MRI-based radiomics research for PCa, assessed through the METRICS score. Findings The average METRICS total score was 52%, reflecting moderate quality in MRI-based radiomics research for PCa, with no statistically significant differences between subgroups. Clinical relevance Enhancing the quality of radiomics research can improve diagnostic accuracy for PCa, leading to better patient outcomes and more informed clinical decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1157-1165\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11299-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11299-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:通过评估方法学放射组学(METRICS)评分,评估前列腺MRI放射组学研究的质量,以评估前列腺癌(PCa)的评估,这是最近引入的一种新的评分工具,旨在促进放射组学和机器学习方法的进一步改进。材料和方法:从2019年7月1日至2023年11月30日进行文献检索,以确定评估PCa背景下mri放射组学的原始研究。7位具有不同专业知识的读者使用METRICS进行了质量评估。进行亚组分析,以评估质量评分是否根据论文的类别(诊断、分期、预后、技术)和质量评分而变化。结果:从1106份文献中获得185份手稿。总体而言,平均METRICS总分为52%±16%。方差分析和卡方检验显示亚组间无统计学差异。得分最低的项目是遵守指南/检查表(4.9%),处理混杂因素(14.1%),外部测试(15.1%),以及数据的可用性(15.7%),代码(4.3%)和模型(1.6%)。相反,大多数研究明确定义患者选择标准(86.5%),采用高质量参考标准(89.2%),并使用描述良好(85.9%)和临床适用(87%)的成像方案作为放射组学数据源。结论:近年来基于mri的前列腺癌放射组学研究质量均匀性好,总体质量中等。通过METRICS评分评估基于mri的前列腺癌放射组学研究的质量。平均METRICS总分为52%,反映了基于mri的前列腺癌放射组学研究质量中等,亚组间无统计学差异。提高放射组学研究的质量可以提高前列腺癌的诊断准确性,从而改善患者的预后,使临床决策更加明智。
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
Prostate cancer MRI methodological radiomics score: a EuSoMII radiomics auditing group initiative.

Objectives: To evaluate the quality of radiomics research in prostate MRI for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PCa) through the assessment of METhodological RadiomICs (METRICS) score, a new scoring tool recently introduced with the goal of fostering further improvement in radiomics and machine learning methodology.

Materials and methods: A literature search was conducted from July 1st, 2019, to November 30th, 2023, to identify original investigations assessing MRI-based radiomics in the setting of PCa. Seven readers with varying expertise underwent a quality assessment using METRICS. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess whether the quality score varied according to papers' categories (diagnosis, staging, prognosis, technical) and quality ratings among these latter.

Results: From a total of 1106 records, 185 manuscripts were available. Overall, the average METRICS total score was 52% ± 16%. ANOVA and chi-square tests revealed no statistically significant differences between subgroups. Items with the lowest positive scores were adherence to guidelines/checklists (4.9%), handling of confounding factors (14.1%), external testing (15.1%), and the availability of data (15.7%), code (4.3%), and models (1.6%). Conversely, most studies clearly defined patient selection criteria (86.5%), employed a high-quality reference standard (89.2%), and utilized a well-described (85.9%) and clinically applicable (87%) imaging protocol as a radiomics data source.

Conclusion: The quality of MRI-based radiomics research for PCa in recent studies demonstrated good homogeneity and overall moderate quality.

Key points: Question To evaluate the quality of MRI-based radiomics research for PCa, assessed through the METRICS score. Findings The average METRICS total score was 52%, reflecting moderate quality in MRI-based radiomics research for PCa, with no statistically significant differences between subgroups. Clinical relevance Enhancing the quality of radiomics research can improve diagnostic accuracy for PCa, leading to better patient outcomes and more informed clinical decision-making.

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
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
期刊最新文献
Automated deep learning-assisted early detection of radiation-induced temporal lobe injury on MRI: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Deep learning-based quantification of T2-FLAIR mismatch sign: extending IDH mutation prediction in adult-type diffuse lower-grade glioma. Image-guided percutaneous ablative treatments for renal cell carcinoma. Reply to Letter to the Editor: "Radiomics in differential diagnosis of Wilms tumor and neuroblastoma with adrenal location in children". Reply to Letter to the Editor: "Trans-arterial embolization for treatment of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding-a multicenter analysis".
×
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