4.5 Review

Radiomics for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Predicting Outcomes from Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapies-A Narrative Review

Journal

EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 717-721

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.04.024

Keywords

Artificial intelligence; Immunotherapy; Kidney cancer; Machine learning; Molecular targeted therapy; Precision medicine; Radiomics; Renal cell carcinoma; Review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radiomics analysis can predict survival, treatment response, and disease progression in RCC patients receiving targeted therapies. Further large-scale studies are needed to validate these findings before clinical application.
T-cell immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapies have become standard-of care treatments for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). There is a need to develop robust biomarkers that predict patient outcomes to targeted therapies to personalise treatment. In recent years, quantitative analysis of imaging features, termed radiomics, has been used to extract tumour features. This narrative mini review summarises the evidence for radiomics prediction of immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapy outcomes in RCC. Radiomics may predict survival, treatment response, and disease progression in RCC treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (eg, sunitinib) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (eg, nivolumab). Further validation is necessary in large-scale studies. Patient summary: We summarise evidence on the ability of features extracted from CT (computed tomography) scans to predict patient outcomes from new treatments for kidney cancer. Although these features can predict treatment outcomes for patients, including survival, treatment response, and cancer progression, further research is necessary before this technology can be applied clinically. (c) 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available