Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cardiac CT and MRI radiomics: systematic review of the literature and radiomics quality score assessment

  • Cardiac
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To systematically review and evaluate the methodological quality of studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) radiomics for cardiac applications.

Methods

Multiple medical literature archives (PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE) were systematically searched to retrieve original studies focused on cardiac MRI and CT radiomics applications. Two researchers in consensus assessed each investigation using the radiomics quality score (RQS). Subgroup analyses were performed to assess whether the total RQS varied according to study aim, journal quartile, imaging modality, and first author category.

Results

From a total of 1961 items, 53 articles were finally included in the analysis. Overall, the studies reached a median total RQS of 7 (IQR, 4–12), corresponding to a percentage score of 19.4% (IQR, 11.1–33.3%). Item scores were particularly low due to lack of prospective design, cost-effectiveness analysis, and open science. Median RQS percentage score was significantly higher in papers where the first author was a medical doctor and in those published on first quartile journals.

Conclusions

The overall methodological quality of radiomics studies in cardiac MRI and CT is still lacking. A higher degree of standardization of the radiomics workflow and higher publication standards for studies are required to allow its translation into clinical practice.

Key Points

• RQS has been recently proposed for the overall assessment of the methodological quality of radiomics-based studies.

• The 53 included studies on cardiac MRI and CT radiomics applications reached a median total RQS of 7 (IQR, 4–12), corresponding to a percentage of 19.4% (IQR, 11.1–33.3%).

• A more standardized methodology in the radiomics workflow is needed, especially in terms of study design, validation, and open science, in order to translate the results to clinical applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CT:

Computed tomography

IQR:

Interquartile range

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

PROSPERO:

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

RQS:

Radiomics quality score

References

  1. Sollini M, Antunovic L, Chiti A, Kirienko M (2019) Towards clinical application of image mining: a systematic review on artificial intelligence and radiomics. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:2656–2672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04372-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ashrafinia S, Dalaie P, Sadaghiani MS et al (2019) Radiomics analysis of clinical myocardial perfusion stress SPECT images to identify coronary artery calcification. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:S17–S18

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ma Q, Ma Y, Wang X et al (2021) A radiomic nomogram for prediction of major adverse cardiac events in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Radiol 31:1140–1150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07176-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ, et al (2020) Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2020 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 141. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000757

  6. Selvanayagam JB (2016) Non-invasive cardiac imaging: past, present and future. Hear Lung Circ 25:755–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2016.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cuocolo R, Ponsiglione A, Dell’Aversana S et al (2020) The cardiac conundrum: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of authorship in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging studies. Insights Imaging 11:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00850-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Raisi-Estabragh Z, Izquierdo C, Campello VM et al (2020) Cardiac magnetic resonance radiomics: basic principles and clinical perspectives. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 21:349–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeaa028

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ordovas KG, Seo Y (2020) Artificial intelligence pipeline for risk prediction in cardiovascular imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 13:e010427. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.120.010427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hassani C, Saremi F, Varghese BA, Duddalwar V (2020) Myocardial radiomics in cardiac MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 214:536–545. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.21986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kolossváry M, Kellermayer M, Merkely B, Maurovich-Horvat P (2018) Cardiac computed tomography radiomics: a comprehensive review on radiomic techniques. J Thorac Imaging 33:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Murgia A, Balestrieri A, Crivelli P, et al (2020) Cardiac computed tomography radiomics: an emerging tool for the non-invasive assessment of coronary atherosclerosis. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 10:2005–2017. https://doi.org/10.21037/cdt-20-156

  13. Xu P, Xue Y, Schoepf UJ et al (2021) Radiomics: the next frontier of cardiac computed tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 14:e011747. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.120.011747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lambin P, Leijenaar RTH, Deist TM et al (2017) Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14:749–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Recht MP, Dewey M, Dreyer K et al (2020) Integrating artificial intelligence into the clinical practice of radiology: challenges and recommendations. Eur Radiol 30:3576–3584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06672-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wakabayashi T, Ouhmich F, Gonzalez-Cabrera C et al (2019) Radiomics in hepatocellular carcinoma: a quantitative review. Hepatol Int 13:546–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-019-09973-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Won SY, Park YW, Ahn SS et al (2021) Quality assessment of meningioma radiomics studies: bridging the gap between exploratory research and clinical applications. Eur J Radiol 138:109673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stanzione A, Gambardella M, Cuocolo R et al (2020) Prostate MRI radiomics: a systematic review and radiomic quality score assessment. Eur J Radiol 129:109095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Spadarella G, Calareso G, Garanzini E et al (2021) MRI based radiomics in nasopharyngeal cancer: systematic review and perspectives using radiomic quality score (RQS) assessment. Eur J Radiol 140:109744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535–b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ugga L, Perillo T, Cuocolo R, et al (2021) Meningioma MRI radiomics and machine learning: systematic review, quality score assessment, and meta-analysis. Neuroradiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-021-02668-0

  22. R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

  23. Baessler B, Mannil M, Oebel S et al (2018) Subacute and chronic left ventricular myocardial scar: accuracy of texture analysis on nonenhanced cine MR images. Radiology 286:103–112. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nam K, Suh YJ, Han K et al (2019) Value of computed tomography radiomic features for differentiation of periprosthetic mass in patients with suspected prosthetic valve obstruction. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 12:e009496. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.119.009496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Baessler B, Luecke C, Lurz J et al (2019) Cardiac MRI and texture analysis of myocardial T1 and T2 maps in myocarditis with acute versus chronic symptoms of heart failure. Radiology 292:608–617. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. van Hamersvelt RW, Zreik M, Voskuil M et al (2019) Deep learning analysis of left ventricular myocardium in CT angiographic intermediate-degree coronary stenosis improves the diagnostic accuracy for identification of functionally significant stenosis. Eur Radiol 29:2350–2359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5822-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Neisius U, El-Rewaidy H, Nakamori S et al (2019) Radiomic analysis of myocardial native T1 imaging discriminates between hypertensive heart disease and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 12:1946–1954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.11.024

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Park JE, Kim D, Kim HS et al (2020) Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement. Eur Radiol 30:523–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06360-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhong J, Hu Y, Si L et al (2021) A systematic review of radiomics in osteosarcoma: utilizing radiomics quality score as a tool promoting clinical translation. Eur Radiol 31:1526–1535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07221-w

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mackin D, Fave X, Zhang L et al (2015) Measuring computed tomography scanner variability of radiomics features. Invest Radiol 50:757–765. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000180

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ursprung S, Beer L, Bruining A et al (2020) Radiomics of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in renal cell carcinoma—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 30:3558–3566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06666-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, McShane LM, Cavenagh MM, Altman DG (2018) Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): an abridged explanation and elaboration. J Natl Cancer Inst 110:803–811. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy088

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2020) ESR statement on the validation of imaging biomarkers. Insights Imaging 11:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00872-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement. BMC Med 13:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. van Timmeren JE, Cester D, Tanadini-Lang S, Alkadhi H, Baessler B (2020) Radiomics in medical imaging—“how-to” guide and critical reflection. Insights Imaging 11:91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00887-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Clark K, Vendt B, Smith K et al (2013) The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J Digit Imaging 26:1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-013-9622-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T (2015) U-Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. arXiv:1505.04597

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

    Andrea Ponsiglione, Arnaldo Stanzione, Raffaele Ascione, Michele Gambardella, Marco De Giorgi, Carmela Nappi, Alberto Cuocolo & Massimo Imbriaco

  2. Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy

    Renato Cuocolo

  3. Interdepartmental Research Center on Management and Innovation in Healthcare - CIRMIS, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

    Renato Cuocolo

Authors
  1. Andrea Ponsiglione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnaldo Stanzione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Renato Cuocolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raffaele Ascione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michele Gambardella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marco De Giorgi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Carmela Nappi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alberto Cuocolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Massimo Imbriaco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renato Cuocolo.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Massimo Imbriaco.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors (RC) has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because of the nature of our study (systematic review).

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because of the nature of our study (systematic review).

Methodology

• systematic review

• performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 28 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ponsiglione, A., Stanzione, A., Cuocolo, R. et al. Cardiac CT and MRI radiomics: systematic review of the literature and radiomics quality score assessment. Eur Radiol 32, 2629–2638 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08375-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08375-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation