Alic Lejla, Niessen Wiro J, Veenland Jifke F
Biomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Department of Radiology and Medical Informatics, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Intelligent Imaging, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), The Hague, The Netherlands.
Biomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Department of Radiology and Medical Informatics, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Imaging Physics, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 20;9(10):e110300. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110300. eCollection 2014.
Many techniques are proposed for the quantification of tumor heterogeneity as an imaging biomarker for differentiation between tumor types, tumor grading, response monitoring and outcome prediction. However, in clinical practice these methods are barely used. This study evaluates the reported performance of the described methods and identifies barriers to their implementation in clinical practice.
The Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched up to 20 September 2013. Heterogeneity analysis methods were classified into four categories, i.e., non-spatial methods (NSM), spatial grey level methods (SGLM), fractal analysis (FA) methods, and filters and transforms (F&T). The performance of the different methods was compared.
Of the 7351 potentially relevant publications, 209 were included. Of these studies, 58% reported the use of NSM, 49% SGLM, 10% FA, and 28% F&T. Differentiation between tumor types, tumor grading and/or outcome prediction was the goal in 87% of the studies. Overall, the reported area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.5 to 1 (median 0.87). No relation was found between the performance and the quantification methods used, or between the performance and the imaging modality. A negative correlation was found between the tumor-feature ratio and the AUC, which is presumably caused by overfitting in small datasets. Cross-validation was reported in 63% of the classification studies. Retrospective analyses were conducted in 57% of the studies without a clear description.
In a research setting, heterogeneity quantification methods can differentiate between tumor types, grade tumors, and predict outcome and monitor treatment effects. To translate these methods to clinical practice, more prospective studies are required that use external datasets for validation: these datasets should be made available to the community to facilitate the development of new and improved methods.
许多技术被提出来用于量化肿瘤异质性,作为区分肿瘤类型、肿瘤分级、反应监测和结果预测的成像生物标志物。然而,在临床实践中这些方法很少被使用。本研究评估了所描述方法的报告性能,并确定了它们在临床实践中实施的障碍。
检索截至2013年9月20日的Ovid、Embase和Cochrane Central数据库。异质性分析方法分为四类,即非空间方法(NSM)、空间灰度方法(SGLM)、分形分析(FA)方法以及滤波器和变换(F&T)。比较了不同方法的性能。
在7351篇潜在相关出版物中,纳入了209篇。在这些研究中,58%报告使用了NSM,49%使用了SGLM,10%使用了FA,28%使用了F&T。87%的研究目标是区分肿瘤类型、肿瘤分级和/或结果预测。总体而言,报告的曲线下面积(AUC)范围为0.5至1(中位数0.87)。未发现性能与所使用的量化方法之间或性能与成像模态之间存在关联。发现肿瘤特征比与AUC之间存在负相关,这可能是由小数据集中的过拟合导致的。63%的分类研究报告了交叉验证。57%的研究进行了回顾性分析,但没有清晰描述。
在研究环境中,异质性量化方法可以区分肿瘤类型、对肿瘤进行分级、预测结果并监测治疗效果。为了将这些方法转化为临床实践,需要更多使用外部数据集进行验证的前瞻性研究:这些数据集应向社区公开,以促进新的和改进方法的开发。