Radiomics quality score in renal masses: a systematic assessment on current literature

Abstract

Objective: To perform a systematic assessment and analyze the quality of radiomics methodology in current literature in the evaluation of renal masses using the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) approach.

Methods: We systematically reviewed recent radiomics literature in renal masses published in PubMed, EMBASE, Elsevier, and Web of Science. Two reviewers blinded by each other's scores evaluated the quality of radiomics methodology in studies published from 2015 to August 2021 using the RQS approach. Owing to the diversity in the imaging modalities and radiomics applications, a meta-analysis could not be performed.

Results: Based on our inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 87 published studies were included in our study. The highest RQS was noted in three categories: reporting of clinical utility, gold standard, and feature reduction. The average RQS of the two reviewers ranged from 5 ≤ RQS≤19, with the maximum attainable RQS being 36. Very few (7/87 i.e., 8%) studies received an average RQS that ranged from 17 < RQS≤19, which represents studies with the highest RQS in our study. Many (39/87 i.e., 45%) studies received an average RQS that ranged from 13 < RQS≤15. No significant interreviewer scoring differences were observed.

Conclusions: We report that the overall scientific quality and reporting of radiomics studies in renal masses is suboptimal, and subsequent studies should bolster current deficiencies to improve reporting of radiomics methodologies.

Advances in knowledge: The RQS approach is a meaningful quantitative scoring system to assess radiomics methodology quality and supports a comprehensive evaluation of the radiomics approach before its incorporation into clinical practice.

Figure 1.

Schematic showing the two types of radiomic workflows and their constituent modules.

Figure 2.

Diagram of systematic assessment workflow. Modified from PRISMA 2020 statement (http://www.prisma-statement.org/)

Figure 3.

Histogram of average RQS representative of the RQS range. Boundaries are indicated by signs, which, as an example (13, 15] means the range between 13 < RQS≤15.

Figure 4.

Distribution of median RQS across the 16 categories of the RQS approach. The RQS was represented as adjudicated scores.

Figure 5.

Median RQS per category. The overall ICC between the two reviewers across the entire RQS panel was 0.66.