Radiomics of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in renal cell carcinoma-a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Objectives: (1) To assess the methodological quality of radiomics studies investigating histological subtypes, therapy response, and survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and (2) to determine the risk of bias in these radiomics studies.
Methods: In this systematic review, literature published since 2000 on radiomics in RCC was included and assessed for methodological quality using the Radiomics Quality Score. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool and a meta-analysis of radiomics studies focusing on differentiating between angiomyolipoma without visible fat and RCC was performed.
Results: Fifty-seven studies investigating the use of radiomics in renal cancer were identified, including 4590 patients in total. The average Radiomics Quality Score was 3.41 (9.4% of total) with good inter-rater agreement (ICC 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.98). Three studies validated results with an independent dataset, one used a publically available validation dataset. None of the studies shared the code, images, or regions of interest. The meta-analysis showed moderate heterogeneity among the included studies and an odds ratio of 6.24 (95% CI 4.27-9.12; p < 0.001) for the differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from RCC.
Conclusions: Radiomics algorithms show promise for answering clinical questions where subjective interpretation is challenging or not established. However, the generalizability of findings to…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,590 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Learning from First-Generation Qualitative Approaches in the IS Discipline: An Evolutionary View and Some Implications for Authors and Evaluators (PART 1/2)
- Commentary on the clinical and preclinical dosage limits of interstitially administered magnetic fluids for therapeutic hyperthermia based on current practice and efficacy models
- Prosthesis: New Technological Opportunities and Innovative Biomedical Devices
- The history and future of neural modeling for cochlear implants
- Ryanodine receptors: waking up from refractoriness
- Novel Transgenic Rabbit Model Sheds Light on the Puzzling Role of Matrix Metalloproteinase-12 in Atherosclerosis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.