The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Radiomics in predicting treatment response in non-small-cell lung cancer: current status, challenges and future perspectives
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: Radiomics is the extraction of quantitative data from medical imaging, which has the potential to characterise tumour phenotype. The radiomics approach has the capacity to construct predictive models for treatment response, essential for the pursuit of personalised medicine. In this literature review, we summarise the current status and evaluate the scientific and reporting quality of radiomics research in the prediction of treatment response in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed database. A total of 178 articles were screened for eligibility and 14 peer-reviewed articles were included. The radiomics quality score (RQS), a radiomics-specific quality metric emulating the TRIPOD guidelines, was used to assess scientific and reporting quality. Results: Included studies reported several predictive markers including first-, second- and high-order features, such as kurtosis, grey-level uniformity and wavelet HLL mean respectively, as well as PET-based metabolic parameters. Quality assessment demonstrated a low median score of + 2.5 (range − 5 to + 9), mainly reflecting a lack of reproducibility and clinical evaluation. There was extensive heterogeneity between studies due to differences in patient population, cancer stage, treatment modality, follow-up timescales and radiomics workflow methodology. Conclusions: Radiomics research has not yet been translated into clinical use. Efforts towards standardisation and collaboration are needed to identify reproducible radiomic predictors of response. Promising radiomic models must be externally validated and their impact evaluated within the clinical pathway before they can be implemented as a clinical decision-making tool to facilitate personalised treatment for patients with NSCLC. Key Points: • The included studies reported several promising radiomic markers of treatment response in lung cancer; however, there was a lack of reproducibility between studies. • Quality assessment using the radiomics quality score (RQS) demonstrated a low median total score of + 2.5 (range − 5 to + 9). • Future radiomics research should focus on implementation of standardised radiomics features and software, together with external validation in a prospective setting.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)
Eisenhauer, E. A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L. H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., Dancey, J., Arbuck, S., Gwyther, S., Mooney, M., et al. (2009) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 · Cited by 29,534
Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data
Gillies, R. J., Kinahan, P. E., & Hricak, H. (2016) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2015151169 · Cited by 8,421
Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine
Lambin, P., Leijenaar, R. T. H., Deist, T. M., Peerlings, J., de Jong, E. E. C., van Timmeren, J., Sanduleanu, S., Larue, R. T. H. M., Even, A. J. G., Jochems, A., et al. (2017) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141 · Cited by 5,688
Zwanenburg, A., Vallières, M., Abdalah, M. A., Aerts, H. J. W. L., Andrearczyk, V., Apte, A., Ashrafinia, S., Bakas, S., Beukinga, R. J., Boellaard, R., et al. (2020) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2020191145 · Cited by 4,177
Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Altman, D. G., & Moons, K. G. M. (2015) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.639 · Cited by 3,293
Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Altman, D. G., & Moons, K. G. M. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0697 · Cited by 3,267
Repeatability and Reproducibility of Radiomic Features: A Systematic Review
Traverso, A., Wee, L., Dekker, A., & Gillies, R. (2018) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.05.053 · Cited by 903
Weber, W. A., Petersen, V., Schmidt, B., Tyndale-Hines, L., Link, T., Peschel, C., & Schwaiger, M. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2003.12.004 · Cited by 493
Cook, G. J. R., Yip, C., Siddique, M., Goh, V., Chicklore, S., Roy, A., Marsden, P., Ahmad, S., & Landau, D. (2013) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.107375 · Cited by 394
False Discovery Rates in PET and CT Studies with Texture Features: A Systematic Review
Chalkidou, A., O’Doherty, M. J., & Marsden, P. K. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124165 · Cited by 344
Cited by
Understanding Sources of Variation to Improve the Reproducibility of Radiomics
Zhao, B. (2021) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.633176 · Cited by 158
Metadata
- Authors
- Chetan, M. R., & Gleeson, F. V.
- Venue
- European Radiology
- Published
- 2020-08-18
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1049-1058
- ISSN
- 0938-7994 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1084
- OpenAlex
- W3064574647
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 18.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Radiomics in predicting treatment response in non-small-cell lung cancer: current status, challenges and future perspectives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00330-020-07141-9
- The paper
- Chetan, M. R., & Gleeson, F. V. (2021). Radiomics in predicting treatment response in non-small-cell lung cancer: current status, challenges and future perspectives. European Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07141-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.