Radiomics, the high-throughput mining of quantitative image features from standard-of-care medical imaging that enables data to be extracted and applied within clinical-decision support systems to improve diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive accuracy, is gaining importance in cancer research. Radiomic analysis exploits sophisticated image analysis tools and the rapid development and validation of medical imaging data that uses image-based signatures for precision diagnosis and treatment, providing a powerful tool in modern medicine. Herein, we describe the process of radiomics, its pitfalls, challenges, opportunities, and its capacity to improve clinical decision making, emphasizing the utility for patients with cancer. Currently, the field of radiomics lacks standardized evaluation of both the scientific integrity and the clinical relevance of the numerous published radiomics investigations resulting from the rapid growth of this area. Rigorous evaluation criteria and reporting guidelines need to be established in order for radiomics to mature as a discipline. Herein, we provide guidance for investigations to meet this urgent need in the field of radiomics.

Precision medicine is the future of health care: please watch the animation at https://vimeo.com/241154708. As a technology-intensive and -dependent medical discipline, oncology will be at the vanguard of this impending change. However, to bring about precision medicine, a fundamental conundrum must be solved: Human cognitive capacity, typically constrained to five variables for decision making in the context of the increasing number of available biomarkers and therapeutic options, is a limiting factor to the realization of precision medicine. Given this level of complexity and the restriction of human decision making, current methods are untenable. A solution to this challenge is multifactorial decision support systems (DSSs), continuously learning artificial intelligence platforms that integrate all available data—clinical, imaging, biologic, genetic, cost—to produce validated predictive models. DSSs compare the personalized probable outcomes—toxicity, tumor control, quality of life, cost effectiveness—of various care pathway decisions to ensure optimal efficacy and economy. DSSs can be integrated into the workflows both strategically (at the multidisciplinary tumor board level to support treatment choice, eg, surgery or radiotherapy) and tactically (at the specialist level to support treatment technique, eg, prostate spacer or not). In some countries, the reimbursement of certain treatments, such as proton therapy, is already conditional on the basis that a DSS is used. DSSs have many stakeholders—clinicians, medical directors, medical insurers, patient advocacy groups—and are a natural consequence of big data in health care. Here, we provide an overview of DSSs, their challenges, opportunities, and capacity to improve clinical decision making, with an emphasis on the utility in oncology.

Data collected and generated by radiation oncology can be classified by the Volume, Variety, Velocity and Veracity (4Vs) of Big Data because they are spread across different care providers and not easily shared owing to patient privacy protection. The magnitude of the 4Vs is substantial in oncology, especially owing to imaging modalities and unclear data definitions. To create useful models ideally all data of all care providers are understood and learned from; however, this presents challenges in the guise of poor data quality, patient privacy concerns, geographical spread, interoperability and large volume. In radiation oncology, there are many efforts to collect data for research and innovation purposes. Clinical trials are the gold standard when proving any hypothesis that directly affects the patient. Collecting data in registries with strict predefined rules is also a common approach to find answers. A third approach is to develop data stores that can be used by modern machine learning techniques to provide new insights or answer hypotheses. We believe all three approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, but they should all strive to create Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) data. To learn from these data, we need distributed learning techniques, sending machine learning algorithms to FAIR data stores around the world, learning from trial data, registries and routine clinical data rather than trying to centralize all data. To improve and personalize medicine, rapid learning platforms must be able to process FAIR “Big Data” to evaluate current clinical practice and to guide further innovation.

The V-IRS approach in combination with a toxicity prediction model and a cost-effectiveness analyses is a promising basis for a decision support tool for the implantation of either a hydrogel spacer or a rectum balloon implant.

Background. A multifactorial decision support system (mDSS) is a tool designed to improve the clinical decision-making process, while using clinical inputs for an individual patient to generate case-specific advice. The study provides an overview of the literature to analyze current available mDSS focused on prostate cancer (PCa), in order to better understand the availability of decision support tools as well as where the current literature is lacking. Methods. We performed a MEDLINE literature search in July 2018. We divided the included studies into different sections: diagnostic, which aids in detection or staging of PCa; treatment, supporting the decision between treatment modalities; and patient, which focusses on informing the patient. We manually screened and excluded studies that did not contain an mDSS concerning prostate cancer and study proposals. Results. Our search resulted in twelve diagnostic mDSS; six treatment mDSS; two patient mDSS; and eight papers that could improve mDSS. Conclusions. Diagnosis mDSS is well represented in the literature as well as treatment mDSS considering external-beam radiotherapy; however, there is a lack of mDSS for other treatment modalities. The development of patient decision aids is a new field of research, and few successes have been made for PCa patients. These tools can improve personalized medicine but need to overcome a number of difficulties to be successful and require more research.