Gitto Salvatore, Cuocolo Renato, Klontzas Michail E, Albano Domenico, Messina Carmelo, Sconfienza Luca Maria
Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Insights Imaging. 2025 Jun 18;16(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s13244-025-02016-3.
To assess the methodological quality of radiomics-based studies on bone chondrosarcoma using METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS) and Radiomics Quality Score (RQS).
A literature search was conducted on EMBASE and PubMed databases for research papers published up to July 2024 and focused on radiomics in bone chondrosarcoma, with no restrictions regarding the study aim. Three readers independently evaluated the study quality using METRICS and RQS. Baseline study characteristics were extracted. Inter-reader reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Out of 68 identified papers, 18 were finally included in the analysis. Radiomics research was aimed at lesion classification (n = 15), outcome prediction (n = 2) or both (n = 1). Study design was retrospective in all papers. Most studies employed MRI (n = 12), CT (n = 3) or both (n = 1). METRICS and RQS adherence rates ranged between 37.3-94.8% and 2.8-44.4%, respectively. Excellent inter-reader reliability was found for both METRICS (ICC = 0.961) and RQS (ICC = 0.975). Among the limitations of the evaluated studies, the absence of prospective studies and deep learning-based analyses was highlighted, along with the limited adherence to radiomics guidelines, use of external testing datasets and open science data.
METRICS and RQS are reproducible quality assessment tools, with the former showing higher adherence rates in studies on chondrosarcoma. METRICS is better suited for assessing papers with retrospective design, which is often chosen in musculoskeletal oncology due to the low prevalence of bone sarcomas. Employing quality scoring systems should be promoted in radiomics-based studies to improve methodological quality and facilitate clinical translation.
Employing reproducible quality scoring systems, especially METRICS (which shows higher adherence rates than RQS and is better suited for assessing retrospective investigations), is highly recommended to design radiomics-based studies on chondrosarcoma, improve methodological quality and facilitate clinical translation.
The low scientific and reporting quality of radiomics studies on chondrosarcoma is the main reason preventing clinical translation. Quality appraisal using METRICS and RQS showed 37.3-94.8% and 2.8-44.4% adherence rates, respectively. Room for improvement was noted in study design, deep learning methods, external testing and open science. Employing reproducible quality scoring systems is recommended to design radiomics studies on bone chondrosarcoma and facilitate clinical translation.
使用基于放射组学的方法学评分(METRICS)和放射组学质量评分(RQS)评估骨肉瘤放射组学研究的方法学质量。
在EMBASE和PubMed数据库中进行文献检索,以查找截至2024年7月发表的关于骨肉瘤放射组学的研究论文,研究目的不限。三位读者使用METRICS和RQS独立评估研究质量。提取基线研究特征。使用组内相关系数(ICC)计算读者间的可靠性。
在68篇已识别的论文中,最终18篇纳入分析。放射组学研究旨在病变分类(n = 15)、结果预测(n = 2)或两者兼具(n = 1)。所有论文的研究设计均为回顾性。大多数研究采用MRI(n = 12)、CT(n = 3)或两者皆用(n = 1)。METRICS和RQS的依从率分别在37.3 - 94.8%和2.8 - 44.4%之间。发现METRICS(ICC = 0.961)和RQS(ICC = 0.975)的读者间可靠性均极佳。在所评估研究的局限性中,突出了前瞻性研究和基于深度学习分析的缺失,以及对放射组学指南、外部测试数据集和开放科学数据的依从性有限。
METRICS和RQS是可重复的质量评估工具,前者在骨肉瘤研究中的依从率更高。METRICS更适合评估具有回顾性设计的论文,由于骨肉瘤发病率低,这种设计在肌肉骨骼肿瘤学中经常被采用。在基于放射组学研究中应推广使用质量评分系统,以提高方法学质量并促进临床转化。
强烈建议采用可重复的质量评分系统,尤其是METRICS(其显示出比RQS更高的依从率且更适合评估回顾性研究)来设计骨肉瘤的放射组学研究,提高方法学质量并促进临床转化。
骨肉瘤放射组学研究的科学和报告质量较低是阻碍临床转化的主要原因。使用METRICS和RQS进行质量评估显示依从率分别为37.3 - 94.8%和2.8 - 44.4%。在研究设计、深度学习方法、外部测试和开放科学方面存在改进空间。建议采用可重复的质量评分系统来设计骨肉瘤的放射组学研究并促进临床转化。