Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40031376›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2025

Reliability of rectal MRI radiomic features: Comparing rectal MRI radiomic features across reader expertise levels, image segmentation technique, and timing of rectal MRI in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Charlotte Charbel, Henry C Kwok, Joao Miranda, Junting Zheng, Maria El Homsi, Mohammad Ali El Amine, Shalini Chhabra, Sofia Danilova, Natalie Gangai, Iva Petkovska and 4 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Charlotte CharbelDepartment of Radiology, Oncologic Imaging Division, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Henry C KwokDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, The University of Auckland | Te Waipapa Taumata Rau, Auckland, Aotearoa, New Zealand; Department of Radiology, Counties Manukau District, Health New Zealand, Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Joao MirandaDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester. 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; Department of Radiology, University of Sao Paulo, R. Dr. Ovídio Pires de Campos, 75 - Cerqueira César, São Paulo, SP 05403-010, Brazil.
Junting ZhengDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: zhengj@mskcc.org.
Maria El HomsiDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: elhomsim@mskcc.org.
Mohammad Ali El AmineDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: elaminem@mskcc.org.
Shalini ChhabraDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: chhabras@mskcc.org.
Sofia DanilovaDepartment of Radiology, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, NY, USA.
Natalie GangaiDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: gangain@mskcc.org.
Iva PetkovskaDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: petkovsi@mskcc.org.
Marinela CapanuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: capanum@mskcc.org.
Rami S VanguriDepartment of Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, Division of Precision Medicine, 227 E 30th St, New York, NY 10016, USA. Electronic address: rami.vanguri@nyulangone.org.
Jayasree ChakrabortyDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: chakrabj@mskcc.org.
Natally HorvatDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester. 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. Electronic address: horvat.natally@mayo.edu.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the reliability of rectal MRI radiomic features across reader expertise level, image segmentation technique, and timing of rectal MRI. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis retrospective single-institutional study included consecutive patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent total neoadjuvant therapy from January 2018 to June 2018. Baseline and restaging rectal MRI T2-weighted images were segmented independently by six radiologists (two fellows, two non-rectal radiologists, and two rectal radiologists). Four segmentation strategies were used and varied by image segmentation technique and timing of rectal MRI: (a) baseline volume of interest (VOI), (b) baseline region of interest (ROI), (c) restaging VOI, and (d) restaging ROI. Inter-reader agreement on each extracted radiomic feature was evaluated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).

resultsAmong 24 patients (16 men; median age, 56 years [interquartile range: 49-62]), 1,595 radiomic features were extracted. Baseline VOI segmentation achieved the highest inter-reader agreement rate, with 68 % (1,079/1,595) of radiomic features having an ICC > 0.7. Restaging ROI segmentation achieved the worst inter-reader agreement rate, with only 26 % (415/1,595) of radiomic features having an ICC > 0.7. First-order statistics and Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) feature subgroups showed high inter-reader agreement rates, and the application of 'Square Root' and 'LOG Sigma' filters resulted in improved inter-reader agreement rates relative to original images. The expertise level of radiologists performing the segmentations did not affect the distribution of inter-agreement rates according to image segmentation technique or timing of rectal MRI.

conclusionsRadiomic features were more reliable when extracted from baseline (vs. restaging) rectal MRIs and using 3D volume of interest (vs. 2D region of interest) segmentation, independent of the expertise level of the radiologists performing the segmentation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Radiomic studies on rectal MRI employ various segmentation strategies and few assess their impact on reproducibility. Establishing the optimal segmentation method enhances radiomics model generalizability, potentially bridging the gap in clinical translation and improving clinical management of patients.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaClinical CompetenceMagnetic Resonance ImagingRectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingObserver VariationRadiomicsRectumReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesMagnetic resonance imagingRadiomicsRectal cancerReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID40031376
PMCPMC12184623

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.