4.7 Review

MRI-Based Artificial Intelligence in Rectal Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 45-56

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28381

关键词

MRI; artificial intelligence; rectal cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rectal cancer has been associated with increased mortality rates in younger patients, highlighting the need for non-invasive imaging markers to guide treatment strategies. The development of artificial intelligence tools based on MRI shows promise in various aspects of rectal cancer evaluation, but challenges such as improving imaging quality, model performance, and understanding the biological meaning of features still need to be addressed.
Rectal cancer (RC) accounts for approximately one-third of colorectal cancer (CRC), with death rates increasing in patients younger than 50 years old. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is routinely performed for tumor evaluation. However, the semantic features from images alone remain insufficient to guide treatment decisions. Functional MRIs are useful for revealing microstructural and functional abnormalities and nevertheless have low or modest repeatability and reproducibility. Therefore, during the preoperative evaluation and follow-up treatment of patients with RC, novel noninvasive imaging markers are needed to describe tumor characteristics to guide treatment strategies and achieve individualized diagnosis and treatment. In recent years, the development of artificial intelligence (AI) has created new tools for RC evaluation based on MRI. In this review, we summarize the research progress of AI in the evaluation of staging, prediction of high-risk factors, genotyping, response to therapy, recurrence, metastasis, prognosis, and segmentation with RC. We further discuss the challenges of clinical application, including improvement in imaging, model performance, and the biological meaning of features, which may also be major development directions in the future. Evidence Level 5 Technical Efficacy Stage 2

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

4.7
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