Dataset Information

Radiomics in Renal Cell Carcinoma-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Radiomics may increase the diagnostic accuracy of medical imaging for localized and metastatic RCC (mRCC). A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Doing so, we comprehensively searched literature databases until May 2020. Studies investigating the diagnostic value of radiomics in differentiation of localized renal tumors and assessment of treatment response to ST in mRCC were included and assessed with respect to their quality using the radiomics quality score (RQS). A total of 113 out of 1098 identified studies met the criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis. Median RQS of all studies was 13.9% (5.0 points, IQR 0.25-7.0 points), and RQS increased over time. Thirty studies were included into the quantitative synthesis: For distinguishing angiomyolipoma, oncocytoma or unspecified benign tumors from RCC, the random effects model showed a log odds ratio (OR) of 2.89 (95%-CI 2.40-3.39, p < 0.001), 3.08 (95%-CI 2.09-4.06, p < 0.001) and 3.57 (95%-CI 2.69-4.45, p < 0.001), respectively. For the general discrimination of benign tumors from RCC log OR was 3.17 (95%-CI 2.73-3.62, p < 0.001). Inhomogeneity of the available studies assessing treatment response in mRCC prevented any meaningful meta-analysis. The application of radiomics seems promising for discrimination of renal tumor dignity. Shared data and open science may assist in improving reproducibility of future studies.

SUBMITTER: Muhlbauer J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8002585 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeDifferentiation of fat-poor angiomyolipoma (fp-AMLs) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is often not possible from just visual interpretation of conventional cross-sectional imaging, typically requiring biopsy or surgery for diagnostic confirmation. However, radiomics has the potential to characterize renal masses without the need for invasive procedures. Here, we conducted a systematic review on the accuracy of CT radiomics in distinguishing fp-AMLs from RCCs.MethodsWe conducted a search using PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published from January 2011-2022 that utilized CT radiomics to discriminate between fp-AMLs and RCCs. A random-effects model was applied for the meta-analysis according to the heterogeneity level. Furthermore, subgroup analyses (group 1: RCCs vs. fp-AML, and group 2: ccRCC vs. fp-AML), and quality assessment were also conducted to explore the possible effect of interstudy differences. To evaluate CT radiomics performance, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were assessed. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022311034).ResultsOur literature search identified 10 studies with 1456 lesions in 1437 patients. Pooled sensitivity was 0.779 [95% CI: 0.562-0.907] and 0.817 [95% CI: 0.663-0.910] for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pooled specificity was 0.933 [95% CI: 0.814-0.978]and 0.926 [95% CI: 0.854-0.964] for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Also, our findings showed higher sensitivity and specificity of 0.858 [95% CI: 0.742-0.927] and 0.886 [95% CI: 0.819-0.930] for detecting ccRCC from fp-AML in the unenhanced phase of CT scan as compared to the corticomedullary and nephrogenic phases of CT scan.ConclusionThis study suggested that radiomic features derived from CT has high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating RCCs vs. fp-AML, particularly in detecting ccRCCs vs. fp-AML. Also, an unenhanced CT scan showed the highest specificity and sensitivity as compared to contrast CT scan phases. Differentiating between fp-AML and RCC often is not possible without biopsy or surgery; radiomics has the potential to obviate these invasive procedures due to its high diagnostic accuracy.

Project description: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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsFifty-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.ConclusionsRadiomics algorithms show promise for answering clinical questions where subjective interpretation is challenging or not established. However, the generalizability of findings to prospective cohorts needs to be demonstrated in future trials for progression towards clinical translation. Improved sharing of methods including code and images could facilitate independent validation of radiomics signatures.Key points• Studies achieved an average Radiomics Quality Score of 10.8%. Common reasons for low Radiomics Quality Scores were unvalidated results, retrospective study design, absence of open science, and insufficient control for multiple comparisons. • A previous training phase allowed reaching almost perfect inter-rater agreement in the application of the Radiomics Quality Score. • Meta-analysis of radiomics studies distinguishing angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma show moderate diagnostic odds ratios of 6.24 and moderate methodological diversity.

Project description:Context:The role of antiangiogenic agents in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is well established. However, it is still not clear whether this benefit can be extrapolated to the adjuvant setting. Objective:To determine the efficacy and safety of antiangiogenic agents in patients with RCC and a high risk of relapse after nephrectomy. Evidence acquisition:We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of any oral antiangiogenic agent compared to placebo in post-nephrectomy RCC patients. Prespecified data elements were extracted from each trial. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Evidence synthesis:Three RCTs comparing antiangiogenics to placebo among 3693 patients met our inclusion criteria and were used in meta-analyses. Overall, antiangiogenics did not improve DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.07) or OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.25). These results persisted when restricting the analysis to patients with clear cell carcinoma and patients with highest risk of relapse. Similarly, sunitinib did not show any improvement in the entire cohort for either DFS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.19) or OS (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90-1.37). Conclusions:In this meta-analysis, antiangiogenics did not improve OS and DFS over placebo in high-risk RCC after nephrectomy. Further studies are needed to identify the patient population that might derive a benefit from antiangiogenics in the adjuvant setting. Patient summary:In this article, we found that there is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of oral antiangiogenics in nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy. In addition, the use of oral antiangiogenics was associated with a 2.7-fold higher rate of significant side effects compared to placebo.

Dataset Information

Radiomics in Renal Cell Carcinoma-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets