Radiomics in distinguishing between lung adenocarcinoma and lung squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically review the studies on radiomics models in distinguishing between lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) and lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC) and evaluate the classification performance of radiomics models using images from various imaging techniques.
Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science Core Collection were utilized to search for radiomics studies that differentiate between LUAD and LUSC. The assessment of the quality of studies included utilized the improved Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and Radiomics Quality Score (RQS). Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the classification performance of radiomics models using various imaging techniques.
Results: The qualitative analysis included 40 studies, while the quantitative synthesis included 21 studies. Median RQS for 40 studies was 12 (range -5~19). Sixteen studies were deemed to have a low risk of bias and low concerns regarding applicability. The radiomics model based on CT images had a pooled sensitivity of 0.78 (95%CI: 0.71~0.83), specificity of 0.85 (95%CI:0.73~0.92), and the area under summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC-AUC) of 0.86 (95%CI:0.82~0.89). As for PET images, the pooled sensitivity was 0.80 (95%CI: 0.61~0.91), specificity was 0.77 (95%CI: 0.60~0.88), and the SROC-AUC was 0.85 (95%CI: 0.82~0.88). PET/CT images had a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (95%CI: 0.72~0.94), specificity of 0.88 (95%CI: 0.80~0.93), and an SROC-AUC of 0.93 (95%CI: 0.91~0.95). MRI images had a pooled sensitivity of 0.73 (95%CI: 0.61~0.82), specificity of 0.80 (95%CI: 0.65~0.90), and an SROC-AUC of 0.79 (95%CI: 0.75~0.82).
Conclusion: Radiomics models demonstrate potential in distinguishing between LUAD and LUSC. Nevertheless, it is crucial to conduct a well-designed and powered prospective radiomics studies to establish their credibility in clinical application.
Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=412851, identifier CRD42023412851.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 Shi, Zhao, Wei, Wu and Sheng.)