Radiomics of renal masses: systematic review of reproducibility and validation strategies

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the radiomics literature on renal mass characterization in terms of reproducibility and validation strategies. MATERIALS and METHODS. With use of PubMed and Google Scholar, a systematic literature search was performed to identify original research papers assessing the value of radiomics in characterization of renal masses. The data items were extracted on the basis of three main categories: baseline study characteristics, radiomic feature reproducibility strategies, and statistical model validation strategies. RESULTS. After screening and application of the eligibility criteria, a total of 41 papers were included in the study. Almost one-half of the papers (19 [46%]) presented at least one reproducibility analysis. Segmentation variability (18 [44%]) was the main theme of the analyses, outnumbering image acquisition or processing (3 [7%]). No single paper considered slice selection bias. The most commonly used statistical tool for analysis was intraclass correlation coefficient (14 of 19 [74%]), with no consensus on the threshold or cutoff values. Approximately one-half of the papers (22 [54%]) used at least one validation method, with a predominance of internal validation techniques (20 [49%]). The most frequently used internal validation technique was k-fold cross-validation (12 [29%]). Independent or external validation was used in only three papers (7%). CONCLUSION. Workflow characteristics described in the radiomics literature about renal mass characterization are heterogeneous. To bring radiomics from a mere research area to clinical use, the field needs many more papers that consider the reproducibility of radiomic features and include independent or external validation in their workflow.