BACKGROUND To evaluate radiomics analysis in neuro-oncologic studies according to a radiomics quality score (RQS) system to find room for improvement in clinical use. METHODS Pubmed and Embase were searched up the terms radiomics or radiogenomics and gliomas or glioblastomas until February 2019. From 189 articles, 51 original research articles reporting the diagnostic, prognostic, or predictive utility were selected. The quality of the methodology was evaluated according to the RQS. The adherence rates for the six key domains were evaluated: image protocol and reproducibility, feature reduction and validation, biologic/clinical utility, performance index, a high level of evidence, and open science. Subgroup analyses for journal type (imaging vs. clinical) and biomarker (diagnostic vs. prognostic/predictive) were performed. RESULTS The median RQS was 11 out of 36 and adherence rate was 37.1%. Only 29.4% performed external validation. The adherence rate was high for reporting imaging protocol (100%), feature reduction (94.1%), and discrimination statistics (96.1%), but low for conducting test-retest analysis (2%), prospective study (3.9%), demonstrating potential clinical utility (2%), and open science (5.9%). None of the studies conducted a phantom study or cost-effectiveness analysis. Prognostic/predictive studies received higher score than diagnostic studies in comparison to gold standard (P < .001), use of calibration (P = .02), and cut-off analysis (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS The quality of reporting of radiomics studies in neuro-oncology is currently insufficient. Validation is necessary using external dataset, and improvements need to be made to feature reproducibility, demonstrating clinical utility, pursuits of a higher level of evidence, and open science.

中文翻译：

---

一个系统的综述报告了放射肿瘤学在神经肿瘤学中的研究质量：使用高维成像功能朝着临床实用性和质量改进的方向发展。

背景技术根据放射线学质量评分（RQS）系统评估神经肿瘤学研究中的放射线学分析，以寻找改善临床应用的空间。方法截至2019年2月，在Pubmed和Embase中搜索放射组学或放射基因组学和神经胶质瘤或成胶质细胞瘤。从189篇文章中，选择51篇报告诊断，预后或预测效用的原创研究文章。方法的质量根据RQS进行了评估。评估了六个关键领域的依从率：图像协议和可重复性，特征减少和验证，生物学/临床效用，性能指标，高水平的证据和开放科学。进行了亚型分析，包括期刊类型（影像对比临床）和生物标记物（诊断对比预后/预测）。结果RQS中位数为36分中的11分，依从率为37.1％。只有29.4％的人进行了外部验证。报告成像方案（100％），特征减少（94.1％）和辨别力统计（96.1％）的依从率高，但进行重测分析（2％），前瞻性研究（3.9％）的依从率低潜在的临床效用（2％）和开放科学（5.9％）。没有一项研究进行了幻像研究或成本效益分析。与金标准（P <.001），使用校正（P = .02）和截止分析（P = .001）相比，预后/预测研究的得分高于诊断研究。结论神经肿瘤放射学研究报告的质量目前不足。必须使用外部数据集进行验证，