4.3 Review

Novel imaging techniques of rectal cancer: what do radiomics and radiogenomics have to offer? A literature review

Journal

ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 11, Pages 3764-3774

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-02042-y

Keywords

Radiomics; Radiogenomics; Rectal neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Computed tomography; Positron emission tomography

Funding

  1. NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant [P30 CA008748]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction As computational capabilities have advanced, radiologists and their collaborators have looked for novel ways to analyze diagnostic images. This has resulted in the development of radiomics and radiogenomics as new fields in medical imaging. Radiomics and radiogenomics may change the practice of medicine, particularly for patients with colorectal cancer. Radiomics corresponds to the extraction and analysis of numerous quantitative imaging features from conventional imaging modalities in correlation with several endpoints, including the prediction of pathology, genomics, therapeutic response, and clinical outcome. In radiogenomics, qualitative and/or quantitative imaging features are extracted and correlated with genetic profiles of the imaged tissue. Thus far, several studies have evaluated the use of radiomics and radiogenomics in patients with colorectal cancer; however, there are challenges to be overcome before its routine implementation including challenges related to sample size, model design and interpretability, and the lack of robust multicenter validation set. Material and methods In this article, we will review the concepts of radiomics and radiogenomics and their potential applications in rectal cancer. Conclusion Radiologists should be aware of the basic concepts, benefits, pitfalls, and limitations of new radiomic and radiogenomics techniques to achieve a balanced interpretation of the results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available