A systematic review of radiomics in pancreatitis: applying the evidence level rating tool for promoting clinical transferability

Abstract

Background Multiple tools have been applied to radiomics evaluation, while evidence rating tools for this field are still lacking. This study aims to assess the quality of pancreatitis radiomics research and test the feasibility of the evidence level rating tool. Results Thirty studies were included after a systematic search of pancreatitis radiomics studies until February 28, 2022, via five databases. Twenty-four studies employed radiomics for diagnostic purposes. The mean ± standard deviation of the adherence rate was 38.3 ± 13.3%, 61.3 ± 11.9%, and 37.1 ± 27.2% for the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS), the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist, and the Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative (IBSI) guideline for preprocessing steps, respectively. The median (range) of RQS was 7.0 (− 3.0 to 18.0). The risk of bias and application concerns were mainly related to the index test according to the modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The meta-analysis on differential diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis versus pancreatic cancer by CT and mass-forming pancreatitis versus pancreatic cancer by MRI showed diagnostic odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of, respectively, 189.63 (79.65–451.48) and 135.70 (36.17–509.13), both rated as weak evidence mainly due to the insufficient sample size. Conclusions More research on prognosis of acute pancreatitis is encouraged. The current pancreatitis radiomics studies have insufficient quality and share common scientific disadvantages. The evidence level rating is feasible and necessary for bringing the field of radiomics from preclinical research area to clinical stage.

A systematic review of radiomics in giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB): the potential of analysis on individual radiomics feature for identifying genuine promising imaging biomarkers

“…The ideal percentage of the RQS rating of GCTB radiomics researches was comparable to other musculoskeletal sarcomas [ 16 - 19 ]. The adherence rate of the TRIPOD checklist and the CLAIM tool were also similar to previous reviews [ 18 , 19 , 29 , 30 , 50 ]. The prospective study design, phantom study, test–retest analysis, validation, analysis of cut-offs, cist-effectiveness and clinical utility, as well as open science items have been suggested as common issues across radiomics research.…”

“…The insufficient study quality of radiomics studies has been repeatedly addressed [ 16 - 19 , 29 , 30 , 50 ]. The ideal percentage of the RQS rating of GCTB radiomics researches was comparable to other musculoskeletal sarcomas [ 16 - 19 ].…”

“…GCTB occurs most frequently in the long bones of the extremities, but it is notable that six out of nine included studies focused on tumors of axial bones [ 20 , 22 , 23 , 25 - 27 ].We did not include the GCTB researches using deep learning methodology, because one of our study aims was to test the feasibility of analysis at the level of radiomics feature. Secondly, the study quality was assessed by multiple tools, including the RQS, the TRIPOD, and the CLAIM, as these three tools have been confirmed to be suitable for radiomics reviews [ 18 , 19 , 29 , 30 , 50 ]. However, some items and their weight in the evaluation still needs clarification [ 18 , 63 ].…”

An overview of meta-analyses on radiomics: more evidence is needed to support clinical translation

“…The TRIPOD checklist might further identify room for improvement in radiomics studies, but some items were not suitable for radiomics studies [ 76 ]. The IBSI checklist has highly overlapped with other checklists and somehow too complicated to use [ 73 ]. Recently, CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research (CLEAR) has been developed as a single documentation standard for radiomics research that can guide authors and reviewers [ 77 .…”

Role of radiomics in the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal cancer

“…Recently published guidelines and checklists aiming to improve the quality of radiomics studies, including the radiomics quality score, modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, image biomarker standardization initiativeguideline, and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis checklist, have been applied to radiomics evaluations[ 154 - 157 ]. These studies have shown that the current scientific and reporting quality of many radiomics studies is insufficient; feature reproducibility, open science categories, and clinical utility analyses need to be improved; and study objectives, blinding, sample sizes, and missing data must be reported[ 154 - 157 ]. In the future, radiomics studies should adhere to these guidelines to facilitate the translation of radiomics research into clinical practice[ 156 ].…”