Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.
Br J Radiol. 2022 Oct 1;95(1139):20220401. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20220401. Epub 2022 Aug 26.
To evaluate the quality of radiomics studies on pituitary adenoma according to the radiomics quality score (RQS) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD).
PubMed MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify radiomics studies on pituitary adenomas. From 138 articles, 20 relevant original research articles were included. Studies were scored based on RQS and TRIPOD guidelines.
Most included studies did not perform pre-processing; isovoxel resampling, signal intensity normalization, and N4 bias field correction were performed in only five (25%), eight (40%), and four (20%) studies, respectively. Only two (10%) studies performed external validation. The mean RQS and basic adherence rate were 2.8 (7.6%) and 26.6%, respectively. There was a low adherence rate for conducting comparison to "gold-standard" (20%), multiple segmentation (25%), and stating potential clinical utility (25%). No study stated the biological correlation, conducted a test-retest or phantom study, was a prospective study, conducted cost-effectiveness analysis, or provided open-source code and data, which resulted in low-level evidence. The overall adherence rate for TRIPOD was 54.6%, and it was low for reporting the title (5%), abstract (0%), explaining the sample size (10%), and suggesting a full prediction model (5%).
The radiomics reporting quality for pituitary adenoma is insufficient. Pre-processing is required for feature reproducibility and external validation is necessary. Feature reproducibility, clinical utility demonstration, higher evidence levels, and open science are required. Titles, abstracts, and full prediction model suggestions should be improved for transparent reporting.
Despite the rapidly increasing number of radiomics researches on pituitary adenoma, the quality of science in these researches is unknown. Our study indicates that the overall quality needs to be significantly improved in radiomics studies on pituitary adenoma, and since the concept of RQS and IBSI is still unfamiliar to clinicians and radiologist researchers, our study may help to reach higher technical and clinical impact in the future study.
根据放射组学质量评分(RQS)和用于个体预后或诊断的多变量预测模型透明报告(TRIPOD)标准,评估垂体腺瘤放射组学研究的质量。
检索 PubMed MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 数据库,以确定垂体腺瘤的放射组学研究。从 138 篇文章中,纳入 20 项相关的原始研究。根据 RQS 和 TRIPOD 指南对研究进行评分。
大多数纳入的研究未进行预处理;仅有 5 项(25%)、8 项(40%)和 4 项(20%)研究分别进行了等体素重采样、信号强度归一化和 N4 偏置场校正。仅 2 项(10%)研究进行了外部验证。RQS 的平均得分和基本符合率分别为 2.8(7.6%)和 26.6%。在与“金标准”进行比较、进行多次分割和说明潜在临床效用方面,符合率较低(分别为 20%、25%和 25%)。没有研究说明生物学相关性、进行测试-再测试或体模研究、前瞻性研究、进行成本效益分析或提供开源代码和数据,这导致证据水平较低。TRIPOD 的总体符合率为 54.6%,在报告标题(5%)、摘要(0%)、解释样本量(10%)和建议完整预测模型(5%)方面的符合率较低。
垂体腺瘤的放射组学报告质量不足。需要进行预处理以确保特征的可重复性,并且需要进行外部验证。需要提高特征的可重复性、临床实用性证明、证据水平和开放科学。需要改进标题、摘要和完整预测模型建议,以实现透明报告。
尽管关于垂体腺瘤的放射组学研究数量迅速增加,但这些研究的科学质量尚不清楚。我们的研究表明,垂体腺瘤的放射组学研究的整体质量需要显著提高,由于 RQS 和 IBSI 的概念对临床医生和放射科研究人员来说仍然不熟悉,因此我们的研究可能有助于在未来的研究中达到更高的技术和临床影响力。