Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic review of radiomics in chondrosarcoma: assessment of study quality and clinical value needs handy tools

  • Musculoskeletal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the study quality and clinical value of radiomics studies on chondrosarcoma.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data were searched for articles on radiomics for evaluating chondrosarcoma as of January 31, 2022. The study quality was assessed according to Radiomics Quality Score (RQS), Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist, Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative (IBSI) guideline, and modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The level of evidence supporting clinical use of radiomics on chondrosarcoma differential diagnosis was determined based on meta-analyses.

Results

Twelve articles were included. The median RQS was 10.5 (range, −3 to 15), with an adherence rate of 36%. The adherence rate was extremely low in domains of high-level evidence (0%), open science and data (17%), and imaging and segmentation (35%). The adherence rate of the TRIPOD checklist was 61%, and low for section of title and abstract (13%), introduction (42%), and results (56%). The reporting rate of pre-processing steps according to the IBSI guideline was 60%. The risk of bias and concern of application were mainly related to the index test. The meta-analysis on differential diagnosis of enchondromas vs. chondrosarcomas showed a diagnostic odds ratio of 43.90 (95% confidential interval, 25.33–76.10), which was rated as weak evidence.

Conclusions

The current scientific and reporting quality of radiomics studies on chondrosarcoma was insufficient. Radiomics has potential in facilitating the optimization of operation decision-making in chondrosarcoma.

Key Points

• Among radiomics studies on chondrosarcoma, although differential diagnostic models showed promising performance, only pieces of weak level of evidence were reached with insufficient study quality.

• Since the RQS rating, the TRIPOD checklist, and the IBSI guideline have largely overlapped with each other, it is necessary to establish one widely acceptable methodological and reporting guideline for radiomics research.

• The TRIPOD model typing, the phase classification of image mining studies, and the level of evidence category are useful tools to assess the gap between academic research and clinical application, although their modifications for radiomics studies are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CI:

Confidence interval

DOR:

Diagnostic odds ratio

HSROC:

Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic

IBSI:

Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative

QUADAS-2:

modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

RQS:

Radiomics Quality Score

TRIPOD:

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis

References

  1. WHO Classification of Tumours Edition Board (2020) World Health Organization classification of tumours: WHO classification of tumours of soft tissue and bone, 5th edn. IARC Press, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  2. Strauss SJ, Frezza AM, Abecassis N et al; ESMO Guidelines Committee, EURACAN, GENTURIS and ERN PaedCan (2021) Bone sarcomas: ESMO-EURACAN-GENTURIS-ERN PaedCan clinical practice guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 32(12): 1520-1536

  3. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2021) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Bone Cancer, version 2. 2022 – October 8, 2021. Available https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/bone.pdf. Accessed Jan 2022

  4. Chen X, Yu LJ, Peng HM et al (2017) Is intralesional resection suitable for central grade 1 chondrosarcoma: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(9):1718–1726

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Stevenson JD, Laitinen MK, Parry MC, Sumathi V, Grimer RJ, Jeys LM (2018) The role of surgical margins in chondrosarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(9):1412–1418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. van Praag Veroniek VM, Rueten-Budde AJ, Ho V, Dijkstra PDS, Fiocco M, van de Sander MAJ, Study group Bone and Soft tissue tumours (WeBot) (2018) Incidence, outcomes and prognostic factors during 25 years of treatment of chondrosarcomas. Surg Oncol 27(3):402–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Logie CI, Walker EA, Forsberg JA, Potter BK, Murphey MD (2013) Chondrosarcoma: a diagnostic imager’s guide to decision making and patient management. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 17(2):101–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sharif B, Lindsay D, Saifuddin A (2021) The role of imaging in differentiating low-grade and high-grade central chondral tumours. Eur J Radiol 137:109579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crim J, Schmidt R, Layfield L, Hanrahan C, Manaster BJ (2015) Can imaging criteria distinguish enchondroma from grade 1 chondrosarcoma? Eur J Radiol 84(11):2222–2230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.06.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Douis H, Parry M, Vaiyapuri S, Davies AM (2019) What are the differentiating clinical and MRI-features of enchondromas from low-grade chondrosarcomas? Eur Radiol 28(1):398–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Deckers C, Steyvers MJ, Hannink G, Schreuder HWB, de Rooy JWJ, Van Der Geest ICM (2020) Can MRI differentiate between atypical cartilaginous tumors and high-grade chondrosarcoma? A systematic review. Acta Orthop 91(4):471–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jo I, Gould D, Schlicht S, Taubman K, Choong P (2019) Diagnostic accuracy of functional imaging modalities for chondrosarcoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Oncol 19:100262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel A, Davies AM, Botchu R, James S (2019) A pragmatic approach to the imaging and follow-up of solitary central cartilage tumours of the proximal humerus and knee. Clin Radiol 74(7):517–526

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Skeletal Lesions Interobserver Correlation among Expert Diagnosticians (SLICED) Study Group (2007) Reliability of histopathologic and radiologic grading of cartilaginous neoplasms in long bones. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(10):2113–2123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eefting D, Schrage YM, Geirnaerdt MJ et al; EuroBoNeT consortium (2009) Assessment of interobserver variability and histologic parameters to improve reliability in classification and grading of central cartilaginous tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 33(1): 50-57

  16. Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R et al (2012) Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 48:441–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. O’Connor JP, Aboagye EO, Adams JE et al (2017) Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14:169–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Crombé A, Fadli D, Italiano A, Saut O, Buy X, Kind M (2020) Systematic review of sarcomas radiomics studies: bridging the gap between concepts and clinical applications? Eur J Radiol 132:109283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gitto S, Cuocolo R, Albano D et al (2021) CT and MRI radiomics of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas: a systematic review of reproducibility and validation strategies. Insights Imaging 12(1):68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhong J, Hu Y, Si L et al (2021) A systematic review of radiomics in osteosarcoma: utilizing radiomics quality score as a tool promoting clinical translation. Eur Radiol 31(3):1526–1535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med 162(1):55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zwanenburg A, Vallières M, Abdalah MA et al (2020) The image biomarker standardization initiative: standardized quantitative radiomics for high-throughput image-based phenotyping. Radiology 295(2):328–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood, ME et al; QUADAS-2 Group (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155(8): 529-536

  26. Park JE, Kim D, Kim HS et al (2020) Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement. Eur Radiol 30(1):523–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee S, Han K, Suh YJ (2022) Quality assessment of radiomics research in cardiac CT: a systematic review. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08429-0

  28. Won SY, Park YW, Ahn SS et al (2021) Quality assessment of meningioma radiomics studies: bridging the gap between exploratory research and clinical applications. Eur J Radiol 138:109673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Park CJ, Park YW, Ahn SS et al (2022) Quality of radiomics research on brain metastasis: a roadmap to promote clinical translation. Korean J Radiol 23(1):77–88

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sollini M, Antunovic L, Chiti A, Kirienko M (2019) Towards clinical application of image mining: a systematic review on artificial intelligence and radiomics. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46(13):2656–2672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dang Y, Hou Y (2021) The prognostic value of late gadolinium enhancement in heart diseases: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies. Eur Radiol 31(7):4528–4537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Deng XY, Chen HY, Yu JN et al (2021) Diagnostic value of CT- and MRI-based texture analysis and imaging findings for grading cartilaginous tumors in long bones. Front Oncol 11:700204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fritz B, Müller DA, Sutter R et al (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging-based grading of cartilaginous bone tumors: added value of quantitative texture analysis. Invest Radiol 53(11):663–672

  34. Gitto S, Cuocolo R, Albano D et al (2020) MRI radiomics-based machine-learning classification of bone chondrosarcoma. Eur J Radiol 128:109043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gitto S, Cuocolo R, Annovazzi A et al (2021) CT radiomics-based machine learning classification of atypical cartilaginous tumours and appendicular chondrosarcomas. EBioMedicine 68:103407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gitto S, Cuocolo R, van Langevelde K et al (2022) MRI radiomics-based machine learning classification of atypical cartilaginous tumour and grade II chondrosarcoma of long bones. EBioMedicine 75:103757

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Li L, Wang K, Ma X et al (2019) Radiomic analysis of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating skull base chordoma and chondrosarcoma. Eur J Radiol 118:81–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lisson CS, Lisson CG, Flosdorf K et al (2018) Diagnostic value of MRI-based 3D texture analysis for tissue characterisation and discrimination of low-grade chondrosarcoma from enchondroma: a pilot study. Eur Radiol 28(2):468–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pan J, Jiang Y, Zhan Y et al (2020) Radiomics models based on non-enhanced MRI can differentiate chondrosarcoma from enchondroma. J South Med Univ 40(4):483–490 [Article in Chinese]

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pan J, Zhang K, Le H (2021) Radiomics nomograms based on non-enhanced MRI and clinical risk factors for the differentiation of chondrosarcoma from enchondroma. J Magn Reson Imaging 54(4):1314–1323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Yin P, Mao N, Liu X et al (2020) Can clinical radiomics nomogram based on 3D multiparametric MRI features and clinical characteristics estimate early recurrence of pelvic chondrosarcoma? J Magn Reson Imaging 51(2):435–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Yin P, Zhi X, Sun C et al (2021) Radiomics models for the preoperative prediction of pelvic and sacral tumor types: a single-center retrospective study of 795 cases. Front Oncol 11:709659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhou X, Xu L, Lin P, Ye Z (2019) Identification of enchondroma and chondrosarcoma in long bone using radiomics features extracted from magnetic resonance images. J Pract Oncol 34(3):219–226 [Article in Chinese]

    Google Scholar 

  44. Liu Z, Zhang XY, Shi YJ et al (2017) Radiomics analysis for evaluation of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 23(23):7253–7262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Pfaehler E, Zhovannik I, Wei L et al (2021) A systematic review and quality of reporting checklist for repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 20:69–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr. Shiqi Mao from the Department of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Thoracic Cancer Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine, for his suggestions on data visualization.

Funding

This study has received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81771790), Yangfan Project of Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (22YF1442400), Medicine and Engineering Combination Project of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (YG2019ZDB09), and Research Fund of Tongren Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine (TRKYRC-XX202204, 2020TRYJ(LB)06, 2020TRYJ(JC)07, TRGG202101, TRYJ2021JC06).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jingyu Zhong and Yangfan Hu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Imaging, Tongren Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1111 Xianxia Road, Shanghai, 200336, China

    Jingyu Zhong, Yangfan Hu, Xiang Ge, Yue Xing, Defang Ding & Weiwu Yao

  2. Department of Sports Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, No. 600 Yishan Road, Shanghai, 200233, China

    Guangcheng Zhang

  3. Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 197 Ruijin 2nd Road, Shanghai, 200025, China

    Huan Zhang

  4. Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, No. 600 Yishan Road, Shanghai, 200233, China

    Qingcheng Yang

Authors
  1. Jingyu Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yangfan Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiang Ge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yue Xing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Defang Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guangcheng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Huan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Qingcheng Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Weiwu Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qingcheng Yang or Weiwu Yao.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Weiwu Yao.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because of the nature of our study, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because of the nature of our study, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• multicenter study

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(PDF 1778 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhong, J., Hu, Y., Ge, X. et al. A systematic review of radiomics in chondrosarcoma: assessment of study quality and clinical value needs handy tools. Eur Radiol 33, 1433–1444 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09060-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09060-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation