CT-based radiomics for differentiating invasive adenocarcinomas from indolent lung adenocarcinomas appearing as ground-glass nodules: A systematic review

Purpose: To provide an overview of the available studies investigating the use of computer tomography (CT) radiomics features for differentiating invasive adenocarcinomas (IAC) from indolent lung adenocarcinomas presenting as ground-glass nodules (GGNs), to identify the bias of the studies and to propose directions for future research. Method: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection were searched for relevant studies. The studies differentiating IAC from indolent lung adenocarcinomas appearing as GGNs based on CT radiomics features were included. Basic information, patient information, CT-scanner information, technique information and perfor-mance information were extracted for each included study. The quality of each study was assessed using the Radiomic Quality Score (RQS) and the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Results: Twenty-eight studies were included with patients ranging from 34 to 794. All of them were retrospective. Patients in three studies were from multiple centers. Most studies segmented regions of interest manually. Pyradiomics and AK software were the most frequently used for features extraction. The number of radiomics features extracted varied from 7 to 10329. Logistic regression was the most frequently chosen model. Entropy was identified as radiomics signature in seven studies. The AUC of included studies ranged from 0.77 to 0.98 in 15 validation sets. The percentage RQS ranged from 3% to 50%. According to PROBAST, the overall risk of bias (ROB) was high in 89.3% (25/28) of included studies, unclear in 7.1% (2/28) of included studies, and low in 3.6% (1/28) of included studies. All studies were low concern regarding the applicability of primary studies to the review question. Conclusion: CT radiomics-based model is promising and encouraging in differentiating IAC from indolent lung adenocarcinomas, though they require methodological rigor. Well-designed studies are necessary to demonstrate their validity and standardization of methods and results can prompt their use in daily clinical practice.