4.6 Review

Radiomics Applications in Renal Tumor Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

期刊

CANCERS
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers12061387

关键词

radiomics; texture analysis; machine learning; deep learning; artificial neural network; small renal mass; angiomyolipoma; oncocytoma; renal cell carcinoma; kidney cancer

类别

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  2. University of Freiburg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Radiomics texture analysis offers objective image information that could otherwise not be obtained by radiologists ' subjective radiological interpretation. We investigated radiomics applications in renal tumor assessment and provide a comprehensive review. A detailed search of original articles was performed using the PubMed-MEDLINE database until 20 March 2020 to identify English literature relevant to radiomics applications in renal tumor assessment. In total, 42 articles were included in the analysis and divided into four main categories: renal mass differentiation, nuclear grade prediction, gene expression-based molecular signatures, and patient outcome prediction. The main area of research involves accurately differentiating benign and malignant renal masses, specifically between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes and from angiomyolipoma without visible fat and oncocytoma. Nuclear grade prediction may enhance proper patient selection for risk-stratified treatment. Radiomics-predicted gene mutations may serve as surrogate biomarkers for high-risk disease, while predicting patients' responses to targeted therapies and their outcomes will help develop personalized treatment algorithms. Studies generally reported the superiority of radiomics over expert radiological interpretation. Radiomics provides an alternative to subjective image interpretation for improving renal tumor diagnostic accuracy. Further incorporation of clinical and imaging data into radiomics algorithms will augment tumor prediction accuracy and enhance individualized medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据