Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Rapid-paced development and adaptability of artificial intelligence algorithms have secured their almost ubiquitous presence in the field of oncological imaging. Artificial intelligence models have been created for a variety of tasks, including risk stratification, automated detection and segmentation of lesions, characterization, grading and staging, prediction of prognosis, and treatment response. Soon, artificial intelligence could become an essential part of every step of oncological workup and patient management. Integration of neural networks and deep learning into radiological artificial intelligence algorithms allow for extrapolating imaging features otherwise inaccessible to human operators and pave the way to truly personalized management of oncological patients.

Although a significant proportion of currently available artificial intelligence solutions belong to basic and translational cancer imaging research, their progressive transfer to clinical routine is imminent, contributing to the development of a personalized approach in oncology. We thereby review the main applications of artificial intelligence in oncological imaging, describe the example of their successful integration into research and clinical practice, and highlight the challenges and future perspectives that will shape the field of oncological radiology.

Keywords

artificial intelligence machine learning diagnostic imaging oncology precision medicine

Introduction

The dramatic increase in the amount of imaging data and storage and processing capacity over the past decades has promoted the frenzied development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in diagnostic imaging. There is hardly a radiology field that did not face extensive AI research and fast-paced clinical assimilation. Cancer imaging, undoubtedly, is where its impact has so far been the greatest, ever since the introduction of the first computer-aided detection (CAD) systems in the 1980s. The rapid improvement and high-level performance of CAD systems in lung and breast cancer screening contributed to a growing interest in the development of AI-based tools and their continuous integration into routine cancer imaging.

The AI technological domain boasts a great diversity of architectures and task targets, which tend to be ultra-specialized. Oncological applications include the identification of patients at risk of developing cancer, automatic lesion detection with CAD systems, treatment planning tools, and models for predicting treatment response and prognosis.¹ Furthermore, radiomics and radiogenomics methods allow to personalize the risk profile of each patient through novel imaging markers not detectable by the human eye of even the most experienced radiologists.² These findings reflect the unique features of oncological patients and their diseases and can be used to devise patient-tailored management strategies and personalized targeted therapies according to the principles of precision medicine.³

The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the applications of AI in oncological imaging, as well as to analyze obstacles to their wider use in clinical practice. The following AI application will be discussed: risk stratification, lesion detection and cancer screening, radiomics and radiogenomics, tumor segmentation and treatment planning, and treatment and prognosis prediction. Relevant AI terminology and concepts will be introduced before proceeding to the main discussion.

Artificial Intelligence: General Principles

Technology that mimics human intelligence to solve human problems is the core of what is collectively called AI. Developed as a branch of computer science, present-day AI is a broad field of knowledge that welcomes contributions from different disciplines.⁴ While AI is still far from realizing its full potential, it has already shown outstanding results in a variety of fields, notably including the research and clinical activity of radiology departments. However, an almost habitual presence of AI in radiology coexists with an often-superficial knowledge of its inner workings and a degree of confusion about AI terminology. Terms such as AI, machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and neural networks are often used interchangeably, despite having substantial differences.⁵

In the classical paradigm of computer science, a machine (ie, a computer) performs on an input the function for which it is programed to obtain an output. The problem is that it is not possible to translate the extremely complex cognitive process that underlies the work of an experienced radiologist into the programming code. This challenge can be addressed through an ML approach in which the model, like the human brain, could learn from its mistakes. ML algorithms attempt to approximate a required function recognizing meaningful patterns in data.⁶ Most ML approaches used in medical imaging require some degree of human intervention to be trained and are called “supervised algorithms.”⁷ Supervised algorithms are trained on sample data sets containing typical examples of inputs and corresponding outputs. In the simplest cases, the training dataset is labeled by human experts based on manually chosen characteristics of interest. For example, the training dataset may consist of both native chest computed tomography (CT) scans and examination in which lung nodules are highlighted and classified as benign or malignant. However, training datasets can also contain a mix of labeled and unlabeled images. In this case, the algorithm would quantitatively assess the voxels constituting lung nodules and decide what features make them appear benign or malignant. Finally, in advanced AI applications, the training dataset can consist of unlabeled data that the system will reclassify and organize based on common characteristics to try to predict subsequent inputs. This type of unsupervised learning generally makes use of so-called DL algorithms.

From an operational point of view, ML tools are built using artificial neural networks (ANN) (Figure 1) that has proved particularly fit for medical imaging.⁶ ANN are inspired by the human brain and consist of several layers of interconnected “nodes” or “cells.”⁸ The outermost layer is an input layer for initial data, while the innermost layer of the algorithm is the output layer. The cells in different levels are connected and activate one another as the information passes downstream and gets analyzed. The output of each cell depends on a single input value multiplied by a “weight” value. If the output of any individual node is above a specified threshold value, it becomes activated and sends data to the next layer of the network. Otherwise, no data is passed along. Thanks to their unique learning features and sensitive calibration range, ANN algorithms are powerful tools for analyzing large amounts of imaging data progressively shaping the weight of their connections to reduce the uncertainty of the approximation as they are exposed to more data samples. The number of middle layers depends on the algorithm's function and complexity, and an increased number of layers gives rise to so-called DL algorithms. DL uses ANN to discover intricate structures in large data sets with different and increasing levels of abstraction.^6,9 DL models are well-suited for medical image analysis, allowing the detection of hidden patterns and uncover insightful outcomes, sometimes beyond what human experts can provide.¹⁰

Figure 1.

Hierarchy of AI domains frequently employed in oncological imaging. AI field encompasses the theory and development of a wide range of computer systems built to perform the tasks that traditionally required human intelligence. ML is a widely used AI approach based on self-learning algorithms that recognize data patterns in order to predict outcomes. Artificial neural networks are a widespread ML architecture inspired by a human brain, where the information is passed between “nodes” or “cells” organized into several layers. The number of hidden middle layers can vary and depends on the algorithm's function and complexity. When the overall number of layers exceeds 3, the algorithm is considered “deep” and defined as DL. The inner working of DL algorithms cannot be directly assessed by human operators and are often referred to as “black boxes”. Abbreviations: AI, artificial intelligence; DL, deep learning; ML, machine learning.

DL algorithms contribute to the fast development of radiomics, which has recently emerged as a state-of-the-art science in the field of individualized medicine. First defined in 2012 as “high throughput extraction of quantitative imaging features with the intent of creating mineable databases from radiological images,”¹¹ radiomics represents a new approach to medical imaging analysis and allows to further bridge the gap between raw image data and clinical and biological endpoints.¹² Radiomics is based on the assumption that biomedical images contain disease-specific information that is imperceptible to the human eye.^13,14 Although radiomics is not necessarily AI-based, the advances in ML and DL algorithms have greatly facilitated the research and application of radiomics models. Thanks to AI methods and advanced mathematical analysis, radiomics models quantitatively assess large-scale extracted imaging data to identify imaging biomarkers that go beyond simple qualitative evaluation. In oncological imaging, radiomics features are related to tumor size, shape, intensity, and relationships between voxels and texture. These features collectively provide the so-called radiomics signature of the tumor.¹⁵

Radiogenomics is a field closely related to and drawing from radiomics and is based on the hypothesis that extracted quantitative imaging data are a phenotypic manifestation of the mechanisms that occur at the genomic, transcriptomic, or proteomic levels. Radiogenomics combines large volumes of quantitative data extracted from medical images with individual genomic phenotypes to assess the genomic profile of tumors. This allows the creation of prediction models used to stratify patients, guide therapeutic strategies, and evaluate clinical outcomes.¹⁶ Imaging data can be further combined with clinical and laboratory information and other personalized patient variables to improve the precision of diagnostic imaging, predict outcomes, and identify optimal management.¹⁷

Risk Stratification

Identifying patients at risk of developing malignancy and referring them to personalized screening programs is one of the major challenges in modern oncology. AI algorithms allow the derivation of clinically important predictors from generic and often weakly correlated imaging features. When combined with clinical data, this information facilitates the identification of patients that may be at risk of developing malignant lesions.¹⁸ Moreover, AI has the potential to increase the accuracy of radiological assessment of tumor aggressiveness and differentiation between benign and malignant lesions, allowing for more precise patients’ managament.¹

AI-based prediction models have been developed for a variety of imaging techniques and a wide range of malignancies, including lung, colorectal, thyroid, breast, and prostatic cancers. Breast cancer has traditionally attracted major interest for AI-based risk prediction models. Breast cancer remains the leading cause of female cancer mortality with the survival rates in developing countries being as low as 50% due to late detection.¹⁹ A personalized, accurate risk scoring system would identify patients at high risk of developing breast tumors and in need of strict imaging monitoring.²⁰ International Breast Intervention Study (IBIS) model, or Tyrer–Cuzick (TC) model, is a scoring system guiding breast cancer screening and prevention.²¹ It accounts for age, genotype, family history of breast cancer, age at menarche and first birth, menopausal status, atypical hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma in situ, height, and body mass index. Despite its widespread use, IBIS/TC model demonstrated limited accuracy in some high-risk patient populations.²² Integration of DL-identified high-risk imaging features can refine the accuracy of the IBIS/TC model and overcome some of its limitations.^23,24 Breast density is a mammographic feature closely related to the risk of breast cancer and is integral to the correct reporting of mammographic examinations.²⁵ It can be successfully assessed by AI algorithms with an excellent agreement and high intraclass correlation coefficient between the AI software and expert readers.²⁶ A hybrid DL model evaluated by Yala et al included mammographic breast density, age, weight, height, menarche age, menopausal status, detailed family history of breast and ovarian cancer, breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutation status, history of atypical hyperplasia, and history of lobular carcinoma in situ. The IBIS/TC and hybrid DL models showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.66), and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.66-0.75), respectively. The hybrid model placed 31% of patients in the top risk category, compared with 18% identified by the IBIS/TC model, and was able to identify the features associated with long-term risk beyond early detection of the disease.²⁷

Another aspect related to risk stratification includes the assessment of incidentally discovered benign lesions and identifying those that are more likely to develop malignancy in the future. This is particularly relevant when dealing with lung nodules, as radiologists routinely evaluate hundreds of lung nodules to assess their size, location, margins, and evolution. This information is then subjectively interpreted with the help of guidelines and about the clinical characteristics and history of the patient, to stratify the risk and customize therapeutic and monitoring protocols. AI can appreciably facilitate this challenging and time-consuming task. Baldwin et al assessed the performance of an AI-based lung cancer prediction convolutional neural network (LCP-CNN) compared with the multivariate Brock model, which estimates the risk of malignancy for CT-detected pulmonary nodules. LCP-CNN score demonstrated an improved AUC compared with Brock model (89.6%, 95% CI: 87.6-91.5 and 86.8%, 95% CI: 84.3-89.1, respectively) and allowed to identify a larger proportion of benign nodules with a reduced false-negative rate. Integration of LCP-CNN into the assessment of lung nodules detected on chest CT scans could potentially reduce diagnostic time delays.²⁸ Another CNN-based model integrating imaging features with clinical data and biomarkers achieved 94% sensitivity and 91% specificity for the differentiation of benign and malignant pulmonary nodules on CT imaging.²⁹ The results highlight the potential of AI to reduce the need for follow-up scans in low-scoring benign nodules, while accelerating the investigation and treatment of high-scoring malignant nodules and reducing the costs of follow-up examinations. In another study, the use of an auxiliary AI-based tool allowed to improve readers’ sensitivity and specificity in the classification of malignancy risk of indeterminate pulmonary nodules on chest CT. Moreover, it improved interobserver agreement for management recommendations of these indeterminate lung nodules.³⁰

In another approach, a DL signature was developed for N2 lymph node involvement prediction and prognosis stratification in clinical stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A multicenter study performed to test its clinical utility demonstrated an AUC of 0.82, 0.81, and 0.81 in an internal test set, external test cohort, and prospective test cohort, respectively. Moreover, higher DL scores were associated with more activation of tumor proliferation pathways and were predictive of poorer survival rates.³¹

AI models have also been used for risk stratification in other types of lesions. An ANN-based DL algorithm allowed reliable differentiation of malignant versus nonmalignant breast nodules first assessed with breast ultrasound and initially reported as breast imaging reporting data systems (BI-RADS) 3 and 4.³² Hamm et al developed ANN for automated characterization of liver nodules on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with a 92% sensitivity and 98% specificity in the training set and higher sensitivity and specificity compared to radiologists in the test dataset.³³ An ML model allowed to distinguish benign from malignant cystic renal lesions on CT with an AUC of 0.96 and a benefit in the clinical decision algorithm over management guidelines based on Bosniak classification.³⁴ Similarly, an AI-based DL model correctly predicted the majority of benign and malignant pancreatic cystic lesions and outperformed Fukuoka guidelines.³⁵ In the risk stratification of endometrial cancer, several features identified on T2-weighted MRI were selected to build a predictive ML model, which demonstrated an accuracy of 71% and 72% in the training and test datasets, respectively.³⁶ Interestingly, the study by Hsu et al identified that the body composition analysis by an AI algorithm can predict mortality in cancer, highlighting a significant correlation between sarcopenia and mortality in pancreatic cancer patients.³⁷

Lesion Detection and Screening

Screening for clinically occult malignant tumors represents one of the most important goals of oncological imaging and allows timely treatment of tumors that would otherwise pass unnoticed. Radiological screening programs evaluate hundreds of patients at a time, creating a considerable amount of imaging data to review. AI applications can be used to manage the workload and to reduce observational oversights and false-negative readings.³⁸ Improved detection of cancer through screening is thereby a significant area of interest in oncological imaging AI applications.

CAD tools are AI systems commonly employed in radiological screening. CAD programs are pattern recognition software that assists radiologists in identifying potential anomalies in radiology examinations. Although all CAD systems are somehow AI-based, their design can employ a wide range of architectures of varying complexity and depth. Relatively simple early CADs were designed to reflect radiologists’ perspectives and searched for the findings normally assessed by human readers.³⁸ For example, in breast cancer screening, CAD assessed mammograms for the presence of microcalcifications, structural distortions, and masses. Advanced present-day CAD systems make extensive use of DL models to extract information that is not immediately accessible to human operators with promising results and potential for improved accuracy compared with radiologists or clinicians.³⁹ Whereas earlier CAD programs were characterized by high sensitivity and low specificity, newer techniques with improved specificity could significantly facilitate cancer screening. However, radiologists’ experience and judgment remain central to defining the factual relevance of the result provided by CAD systems and deciding further steps.

In clinical routine, CAD systems can be used in a variety of ways. When CAD is used as a “first reader,” a primary CAD assessment is followed by an evaluation by a radiologist that only reviews the anomalies identified by CAD. Alternatively, a screening test can be initially assessed by a radiologist, followed by a secondary CAD review. Problematic areas identified by CAD software are then re-evaluated before the conclusion is formed. Finally, in a concurrent examination, a radiologist routinely assesses the images as the CAD marks remain visible.

Breast cancer screening represents one of the most successful examples of the long-standing implementation of CAD programs into clinical practice.⁴⁰ Early forms of breast screening CAD systems, developed in the 1980s, were limited by poor specificity and low diagnostic accuracy resulting in numerous false positives, unnecessary biopsies, and soaring costs. Integration of DL into recent CAD systems led to significant improvements in specificity. The accuracy of DL-based CADs for the detection of breast cancer on mammography is comparable to that of radiologists, although the latter tend to be slightly more specific at the expense of less sensitivity.⁴¹ A single CAD reading can be equivalent to a double reading by 2 radiologists as required by standardized guidelines.⁴²

CAD-based screening also allows early detection of pulmonary nodules, defined as circumscribed round-shaped parenchymal lesions of <3 cm in diameter.⁴³ The first CADs for automatic detection of lung nodules on chest CT appeared in the early 2000s, although the lack of specificity impeded their widespread clinical use, similar to other early CAD programs. Thanks to the availability of large databases of chest CT scans and the integration of DL techniques into CAD architectures, modern systems demonstrate higher specificity and decreased false-positive rates.⁴⁴ CAD systems based on DL algorithms detect more pulmonary nodules on CT scans compared to double reading by radiologists⁴⁵ and allow to classify the detected nodules based on selected features.⁴⁶ Another DL-based CAD algorithm outperformed thoracic radiologists for the detection of malignant pulmonary nodules on chest x-rays and improved radiologists’ performance when used as a second reader.⁴⁷

CT colonography, or virtual colonoscopy, is a screening technique for the early identification of colonic polyps before they progress to colorectal cancer. Although CAD can improve polyp detection rates, several structures can result in false-positive readings, including haustral folds, coarse mucosa, diverticula, rectal tubes, extracolonic findings, and lipomas.⁴⁸ The experience of the reader is thereby essential for the appropriate interpretation and reporting (Figures 2 and 3). Several CAD algorithms improved the detection of prostatic malignancies on MRI,⁴⁹ including difficult-to-assess areas such as the central part of the gland or the transition zone.⁵⁰ Other possible applications of AI in cancer screening include the detection of metastatic lesions in patients with known primary cancers. Although conceptually this task is similar to detecting primary tumors, the results are currently characterized by low specificity. In the assessment patients with of melanoma, none of the CAD-detected pulmonary nodules proved to be malignant or clinically significant at a follow up.⁵¹

Figure 2.

Automatic segmentation of a pulmonary nodule identified on chest CT by the CAD system. CAD system allowed the identification of a solid pulmonary nodule on axial (A), coronal (B), and sagittal (C) views. The nodule was automatically segmented by an integrated AI interface on all 3 planes (D). Abbreviations: AI, artificial intelligence; CAD, computer-aided detection; CT, computed tomography.

Figure 3.

Identification of colonic polyps on virtual colonoscopy reconstructions by CAD systems. CAD system identified the presence of a colonic polypoid lesion (target sign) on double-contrast barium enema-like (A), supine 2D axial (B), and endoluminal (C) views. Abbreviations: 2D, 2-dimensional; CAD, computer-aided detection.

Radiogenomics

Radiogenomics, an integration of “radiomics” and “genomics” notions through AI technology, is currently emerging as the state-of-the-art field of precision medicine in oncology.⁵² Identification of an array of different genotypes and deregulated pathways involved in the pathogenesis of cancers through the advances in genomic technology lead to the paradigm change of how cancer is seen, classified, and managed with a shift toward a truly personalized approach to each case. Meticulous molecular characterization of malignant tumors is thus one of the mainstays of customized approaches in oncology.⁵³ However, a vast scale genome-based characterization of cancer is not yet routinely adapted due to the invasiveness, technical complexity, high costs, and timing limitations.⁵⁴

Radiogenomics allows a noninvasive and comprehensive characterization of tumor gene expression patterns through imaging phenotype. Distinct portions of tumors and metastases from the same tumor may be characterized by different molecular characteristics, which might change over time. As it is not possible to sample every portion of each tumor and metastatic lesions at multiple time points, the characterization of malignancies by biopsy suffers from significant limitations.⁵⁵ Unlike biopsy, radiogenomics analyzes the 3-dimensional tumor landscape in its complexity, does not depend on the heterogeneity of a bioptic sample, and can be used as a virtual biopsy tool.⁵⁶ Moreover, radiogenomics enables the noninvasive assessment of multiple lesions at different time points.⁵⁷ While most existing studies focus on the analysis of primary tumors, radiogenomics can potentially be applied to the analysis of metastatic lesions. Evaluation of the tumor genomic signature through radiogenomics can further improve our understanding of the natural history of the disease through quick, reproducible, and inexpensive assessment, leading to improved prediction of patient prognosis, individualized therapeutic approaches, optimized enrollment for targeted therapies, and better assessment of treatment responses.⁵⁸

Most existing radiogenomics, AI-based models deal with mutations of methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT), isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1/2, BRCA1/2, Lumina A/B, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), due to the data availability.⁵² In particular, several studies demonstrated the validity of radiogenomic features for the identification of genetic alterations in patients with pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Radiogenomics models could distinguish EGFR-mutated and EGFR-wildtype pulmonary adenocarcinomas,⁵⁹ as well as differentiate EGFR-positive and Kirsten rat sarcoma virus (KRAS)-positive cases.⁶⁰ Addition of radiomics data to a clinical prediction model significantly improved the prediction of EGFR status in pulmonary adenocarcinoma (P = .03).⁶⁰ EGFR mutation status in NSCLC can also be predicted with quantitative radiomics biomarkers from pretreatment CT scans.⁶¹ In another study, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), receptor tyrosine kinase-1 (ROS-1), and rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive pulmonary adenocarcinomas could be identified through a prediction model with a combination of clinical data and CT and positron emission tomography (PET) characteristics.⁶²

EGFR mutations inferred from routine MRI were also demonstrated in patients with glioblastoma based on perfusion patterns in perilesional edema.⁶³ Moreover, neuro-oncology boasts a variety of ML models developed for a more comprehensive characterization of gliomas.⁶⁴ Zhang et al created an algorithm to differentiate these malignancies into low and high grade, with an overall accuracy ranging between 94% and 96%.⁶⁵ An ANN model based on the texture analysis of T2-weighted, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), and T1-weighted postcontrast MRI identified O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation status in patients newly diagnosed with glioblastoma with an accuracy of 87.7%,⁶⁶ allowing to predict the improved response to chemotherapy among patients with this epigenetic change.⁶⁷ Another model allowed to infer a variety of genetic mutations in gliomas through the analysis of multiparametric precontrast and postcontrast MRI, including O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation status, IDH1 mutation, and 1p/19q codeletion, with the accuracy of 83% to 94%.⁶⁸ Codeletion of chromosomes 1p and 19q can also be quantitatively assessed from the MRI texture of T2-weighted images with high sensitivity and specificity.⁶⁹

Promising radiogenomic models in breast imaging allow differentiating molecular subtypes of breast cancer based on MRI dynamic contrast enhancement imaging.^70,71 Genetic pathways of breast tumors were associated with several MRI features, including tumor size, blurred tumor margin, and irregular tumor shape.⁷² Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) expressions in breast tumors showed significant association with tumor size and enhancement texture on MRI.⁷² The biological behavior of breast cancer, in particular expression of HER2 and other receptors, can also be predicted on ultrasound imaging.^73,74 In prostate imaging, radiomics evaluation of prostatic tumor profile on MRI allows to reliably predict the Gleason's grade as defined by pathology.⁷⁵ A study conducted among patients with colorectal cancer identified a radiogenomic signature that can reliably predict microsatellite instability status of the tumors and stratify patients into low-risk and high-risk groups.⁷⁶ Another radiomic signature identified KRAS/neuroblastoma rat sarcaoma virus (RAS) viral oncogene homolog (NRAS)/B-Raf proto-oncogene (BRAF) mutations in colorectal cancer, which reduce the response to monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab.⁷⁷

Tumor Segmentation and Treatment Planning

Tumor segmentation serves several clinical and research purposes in oncological imaging. Segmentation is used to determine the volume of tumors, their morphology and relationships with the surrounding organs and tissues and is crucial for the imaging-based planning of surgery or radiotherapy.⁷⁸ Segmentation also plays an important role in the assessment of treatment response.

From an operational point of view, tumor segmentation requires the division of an image into multiple parts that are homogeneous with respect to one or more characteristics or features, such as colors, grayscale, spatial textures, or geometric shapes.⁷⁹ Before the advent of computer-assisted segmentation tools, contours were manually traced on each slice of imaging scans.⁸⁰ These 2-dimensional segmentations were then put together to create a 3-dimensional reconstruction of the lesion within the acquisition volume. Present-day AI segmentation systems greatly shorten the analysis times and improve the reproducibility and inter-reader variability of segmentations, especially when compared with inexperienced operators.⁸¹ First machine-assisted segmentation tools were supervised algorithms based on line and edge detection, which traced image gradients along object boundaries.⁸¹ Modern segmentation tools are predominantly based on a large variety of DL models.⁸² While most image segmentation techniques use one imaging modality at one specific time point, their performance and applicability can be improved by combining images from several sources (multispectral segmentation) or integrating images over time (dynamic or temporal segmentation).⁸³ Multimodal images can be used to improve the segmentation accuracy by accounting for the advantages and disadvantages of individual imaging modalities. For example, CT provides a detailed definition of bone structures but low soft-tissue contrast,⁸⁴ whereas MRIs are characterized by high soft-tissue contrast but lower spatial resolution. Combined multimodality images would facilitate segmentation and provide additional imaging information. However, multimodal images need to be accurately co-registered to be consistent and are not always available for segmentation.

Several DL segmentation tools have been developed for use in oncological radiology (Figure 4) and are currently clinically available for lesion characterization, treatment planning, and follow up. Neuro-oncological imaging is one of the leading fields for the application of AI segmentation systems with remarkable potential for workflow and clinical impact.⁸⁵ For some types of brain tumors, such as low-grade gliomas, surgical resection is currently the first therapeutic option. Considering the diffuse nature of neural networks at the basis of cognitive functions, the choice of resection margins can dramatically affect the brain function and the patient's quality of life. The development of AI-based systems for the segmentation of brain tumors allows to individually optimize the so-called ”onco-functional balance” and propose tailored resection margins. AI can also be used in other phases of personalized anatomical–functional planning and intraoperative strategy.⁸⁶

Figure 4.

Volumetric segmentation of a renal lesion. A complex renal cyst (A) was detected as a collateral finding during a CT angiography. The lesion was automatically segmented in axial (B), coronal (C), and sagittal (D) views. The volume of the lesion and mean attenuation values were calculated based on the 3-dimensional measurements (D). Abbreviation: CT, computed tomography.

Radiotherapy planning is another important field of application of AI in oncological imaging. Prostate radiotherapy is a well-established curative procedure that moves toward the use of MRI for targeting of adaptive radiotherapy processes. The lack of clear prostate boundaries, tissue heterogeneity, and wide interindividual variety of prostate morphology hinder MRI radiotherapy planning. Among different ML methods proposed for the automated segmentation of prostate tumors, CNN demonstrate the most promising results. Recent studies demonstrated that CNN-based segmentation systems successfully detect prostatic abnormalities and reliably segment the gland and its subzones for subsequent precision radiotherapy.^87,88 Comelli et al proposed a DL MRI prostate segmentation model that could be efficiently applied for prostate delineation even in small training datasets with potential benefit for personalized patient management.⁸⁹

CT is customarily used before radiotherapy to calculate the absorbed dose through the assessment of the density of irradiated tissues. However, in everyday clinical practice, most patients receive both MRI and CT scanning as part of their radiotherapy workup, and radiotherapy can be moving toward the sole acquisition of MRI with an AI generation of synthetic CT images.⁹⁰ DL can be used to generate synthetic CT images from T1-weighted MRI sequences without any significant difference in dose distribution compared to standard CT imaging.^91–93

Predicting Prognosis and Treatment Response

Response to treatment in solid tumors is a key element of oncological imaging. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity and complexity of tumor responses to treatment represent an ongoing challenge for oncological radiologists.^94,95 The current standardized response assessment metrics, such as tumor size changes in response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) criteria, do not reliably predict the underlying biological response.⁹⁶ For example, an initial increase in tumor size, called pseudoprogression, is commonly seen in immunotherapy and is a sign of favorable response to treatment. Conversely, an initial decrease in tumor size, known as pseudoresponse, may be associated with increased tumor aggressiveness as is observed with some anti-angiogenesis agents. AI is a valuable ally for radiologists in determining more accurate methods of treatment response assessment. The prognostic value of AI models has been demonstrated for a variety of oncological fields, including breast, lung, brain, prostate, and head and neck tumors.⁹⁷ A recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Chen et al concluded that radiomics has the potential to noninvasively predict the response and outcome of immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC.⁹⁸ Another model integrating DL radiomics features with circulating tumor cell count could predict the recurrence of patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy.⁹⁹ Although AI-based radiomic approaches have not yet been implemented as a decision-making tool in the clinical setting, additional external, and clinical validations can facilitate personalized treatment for patients with NSCLC.

Recent advances in ML algorithms were used for the development of multimodality models for accurate predictions of the survival of individuals with breast cancer.^100–102 Ha et al reported an 88% accuracy of DL-CNN in predicting the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on pretreatment MRI.¹⁰³ The delayed contrast enhancement on MRI of invasive HER2 + breast tumors could identify molecular cancer subtypes with better response to HER2 + targeted therapy.¹⁰⁴ A radiomic model predicted the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer based on MRI. The performance of the model further improved when combined with standard clinical evaluation.¹⁰⁵ In hepatocellular carcinoma, AI can provide great benefits in patients’ management by predicting the response to a variety of treatments, including transarterial chemoembolization.^106,107

Immunotherapy is one of the most promising tools in oncological treatment. However, despite its remarkable success rate, immunotherapy is still curbed by high costs and toxicities, while its clinical benefit is limited to a specific subset of patients. AI algorithms with integrated imaging biomarkers allow us to predict the response to immunotherapy, as well as identify early responders in order to optimize its cost-effectiveness and clinical impact.¹⁰⁸ For example, radiomic signature inferred from pretreatment and posttreatment CT scans of patients with NSCLC correlated to the density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and the expression of programed cell death (PD) ligand-1 and identified early responders to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.¹⁰⁹ In a large multicenter study, a complex radiomic marker of CD8-cell infiltration predicted response to PD-1 and PD ligand-1 inhibitors.¹¹⁰ Another radiomic marker based on precontrast and postcontrast CT scans and clinical data was able to predict response in patients with NSCLC undergoing anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, with an AUC up to 0.78.¹¹¹ CT radiomic biomarker could predict response to immunochemotherapy among patients with renal cell carcinoma.¹¹² Moreover, as described above, AI-based models can distinguish pseudoprogression from the response to immunotherapy. A model combining radiomics signature on PET/CT, tumor volume, and blood markers successfully predicted pseudoprogression in metastatic melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibition.¹¹³ Finally, the use of AI and radiomics contribute and empower further research into cancer immunity in a bid to better understand the interplay of different genomic and molecular processes at the basis of tumoral response to immunotherapy.¹¹³

The prediction of disease relapse is also crucial for the right treatment planning and AI can provide benefits in this field. Prognostic models integrate genomic profiles and clinical information to stratify the risk of relapse for the choice of the most appropriate therapeutic strategy in accordance with the principles of individualization in cancer treatment.^114,115 Mantle cell lymphoma is an unusual lymphoid malignancy with a poor prognosis and short durations of treatment response. Although most patients present with aggressive disease, there is also an indolent subtype characterized by the translocation between chromosomes 11 and 14 (q13; q32) with overexpression of cyclin D1. The heterogeneity of mantle lymphoma and its outcomes necessitates precise prognosis prediction. Pretreatment CT-based AI model was able to predict relapse of mantle cell lymphoma patients with an accuracy of 70%.¹¹⁶

Challenges and Future Perspectives

To date, AI algorithms in oncological radiology have primarily been applied to manage common and time-consuming problems, such as breast and lung cancer screening.¹¹⁷ However, as described in this review, fast-paced research, and development of AI algorithms in oncological imaging led to rapid upscaling of their impact and increasing focus on ultra-specialized and high-precision tasks guiding medical decisions and improving patients’ therapies. However, several important issues must be addressed before they can be fully and successfully integrated into clinical practice.

Rigorous standards and high transparency in the development, training, testing, and validation of AI models are all essential prerequisites to make AI results reliable, explainable, and interpretable.¹¹⁸ Large volumes of high-quality, representative, and well-curated data are needed for the development of robust AI algorithms,¹¹⁹ as data is considered more critical than hardware and software in the success of AI applications.¹²⁰ Although increasing demand for diagnostic imaging examinations produces an exponential buildup of imaging data, it often lacks appropriate quality verification and association with laboratory and clinical parameters and patients’ outcomes. Patient privacy and informed permission are also important ethical and legal predicaments that require concrete legal steps. Expertise and training are needed to correctly label and segment the imaging data used for the validation of AI algorithms. As a result, small-size imaging datasets are often used, reducing the impact of the results, and limiting their applicability. Moreover, data used in the development of AI protocols can be affected by biases related to the clinical, social, and even geographical scenarios in which they were gathered. Reproducibility and generalizability of AI models is a major obstacle that potentially limits their performance in new datasets compared to the training data. Reproducibility of AI results is further complicated by the heterogeneity of acquisition protocols and a multitude of steps needed for the correct identification and processing of imaging features. The difficulty in prospectively collecting unbiased, good-quality, and conspicuous data highlights the essential role of large data sets created through multicenter and multi-institutional collaborations for training and rigorous validation of the algorithms.¹²¹ Controlled prospective studies are needed to enable the shift from research to clinical routine.¹²² This is particularly important for ML and DL algorithms that operate as “black box” models, where automated decision making cannot be directly assessed or validated by human operators. Moreover, the interest in unsupervised learning on unlabeled data is constantly rising. Increased algorithm transparency and explainability are needed before the large-scale integration of these models into clinical practice can be possible.¹²³

Interdisciplinarity should always be available when dealing with AI in healthcare, as it affects research results and their clinical value. The exchange of knowledge and skills between experts in different fields markedly impacts methodology, provides robustness to results, and facilitates their translation into everyday clinical practice.¹²⁴

Another important aspect that will determine the wide and routine diffusion of AI in the future is its perception and acceptance by both radiologists and patients. Healthcare specialists’ knowledge of AI has a significant impact on their willingness to learn and apply this technology in their job.¹²⁵ A survey on 1041 residents and radiologists highlighted that limited knowledge of AI was associated with fear of replacement, whereas intermediate to advanced levels of knowledge were linked with a positive attitude toward AI.¹²⁶ Therefore, dedicated training in the AI field may improve its clinical acceptance and use.

Patient education and engagement are also essential for the success of AI in clinical practice.¹²⁷ Surveys of patients’ perception of AI highlighted a generally positive attitude toward using AI-based systems, particularly in a supportive role. However, concerns about cyber-security, accuracy, and lack of empathy and face-to-face relationship have also been raised.¹²⁸ The need of providing AI explanations to ensure patients’ trust and acceptance is a crucial point.

Conclusions

AI is becoming increasingly integrated into oncological radiology workflow, and this tendency will likely continue in the future, leading to major improvements in patients’ management and quality of life. A wide variety of routine imaging tasks can be outsourced and automated thanks to AI, including disease detection and quantification and lesions segmentation.

Moreover, the use of AI radiogenomics in oncological imaging is undergoing exponential growth, contributing to the personalization and fine tuning of oncological treatments and approaches. In the next few years, machine learning and neural networks models will become a significant aid in every aspect of oncology, enabling sophisticated analysis of oncological patients and detailed disease characterization. AI technologies in oncological imaging have to overcome several important obstacles before they can be widely used in routine clinical practice. One of the main challenges consists in the effective organization and preprocessing of multi-institutional cohorts of large-scale data needed to obtain clinically reliable algorithms. Ultimately, robust AI-powered multidimensional disease profiling through imaging, clinical, and molecular data in patients with cancer will allow improving clinical strategies and further breach the gap to truly personalized medicine.

Footnotes

Abbreviations

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Michaela Cellina

Correction (December 2022):

Article updated online to correct the article title “Artificial Intellgence in the Era of Precision Oncological Imaging” to “Artificial Intelligence in the Era of Precision Oncological Imaging” and captions of figures 2 and 3 have been revised too.

References

Cheung

HMC

Rubin

. Challenges and opportunities for artificial intelligence in oncological imaging. Clin Radiol. 2021;76(10):728-736.

Scapicchio

Gabelloni

Barucci

Cioni

Saba

Neri

. A deep look into radiomics. Radiol Med. 2021;126(10):1296-1311.

Shin

Bode

Dong

. Precision medicine: the foundation of future cancer therapeutics. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2017;1(1):1-3.

Russell

. Artificial Intelligence a Modern Approach. Pearson Education, Inc.; 2010.

Nakaura

Higaki

Awai

Ikeda

Yamashita

. A primer for understanding radiology articles about machine learning and deep learning. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2020;101(12):765-770.

Santosh

Das

Ghosh

. Deep Learning Models for Medical Imaging. Deep Learning Models for Medical Imaging. Elsevier; 2021.

Sidey-Gibbons

JAM

Sidey-Gibbons

. Machine learning in medicine: a practical introduction. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1-18.

Rosenblatt

. The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychol Rev. 1958;65(6):386.

LeCun

Bengio

Hinton

. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521(7553):436-444.

10.

McKinney

Sieniek

Godbole

, et al. International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature. 2020;577(7788):89-94.

11.

Kumar

Basu

, et al. Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1234-1248.

12.

Lambin

Rios-Velazquez

Leijenaar

, et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(4):441-446.

13.

Neisius

El-Rewaidy

Nakamori

Rodriguez

Manning

Nezafat

. Radiomic analysis of myocardial native T1 imaging discriminates between hypertensive heart disease and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12(10):1946-1954.

14.

Cellina

Pirovano

Ciocca

Gibelli

Floridi

Oliva

. Radiomic analysis of the optic nerve at the first episode of acute optic neuritis: an indicator of optic nerve pathology and a predictor of visual recovery? Radiol Med. 2021;126(5):698-706.

15.

van Timmeren

Cester

Tanadini-Lang

Alkadhi

Baessler

. Radiomics in medical imaging—“how-to” guide and critical reflection. Insights Imaging. 2020;11(1):1-16.

16.

Shui

Ren

Yang

, et al. The era of radiogenomics in precision medicine: an emerging approach to support diagnosis, treatment decisions, and prognostication in oncology. Front Oncol. 2020;10:1-21. Published online 2021:3195.

17.

Lubner

Smith

Sandrasegaran

Sahani

Pickhardt

. CT Texture analysis: definitions, applications, biologic correlates, and challenges. Radiographics. 2017;37(5):1483-1503.

18.

Yamashita

Nishio

RKG

Togashi

. Convolutional neural networks: an overview and application in radiology. Insights Imaging. 2018;9(4):611-629.

19.

DeSantis

Siegel

Bandi

Jemal

. Breast cancer statistics, 2011. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(6):408-418.

20.

Mridha

Hamid

Monowar

, et al. A comprehensive survey on deep-learning-based breast cancer diagnosis. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(23):6116.

21.

Tyrer

Duffy

Cuzick

. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004;23(7):1111-1130.

22.

Valero

Zabor

Park

, et al. The Tyrer–Cuzick model inaccurately predicts invasive breast cancer risk in women with LCIS. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(3):736-740.

23.

van Veen

Brentnall

Byers

, et al. Use of single-nucleotide polymorphisms and mammographic density plus classic risk factors for breast cancer risk prediction. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(4):476-482.

24.

Brentnall

Harkness

Astley

, et al. Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17(1):1-10.

25.

Harvey

Bovbjerg

. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology. 2004;230(1):29-41.

26.

Le Boulc’h

Bekhouche

Kermarrec

, et al. Comparison of breast density assessment between human eye and automated software on digital and synthetic mammography: impact on breast cancer risk. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2020;101(12):811-819.

27.

Yala

Lehman

Schuster

Portnoi

Barzilay

. A deep learning mammography-based model for improved breast cancer risk prediction. Radiology. 2019;292(1):60-66.

28.

Baldwin

Gustafson

Pickup

, et al. External validation of a convolutional neural network artificial intelligence tool to predict malignancy in pulmonary nodules. Thorax. 2020;75(4):306-312.

29.

Nasrullah

Sang

Alam

Mateen

Cai

. Automated lung nodule detection and classification using deep learning combined with multiple strategies. Sensors. 2019;19(17):3722.

30.

Kim

Oke

Pickup

, et al. Artificial intelligence tool for assessment of indeterminate pulmonary nodules detected with CT. Radiology. 2022; 304(3):683-691. Published Online: May 24 2022. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.212182

31.

Zhong

She

Deng

, et al. Deep learning for prediction of N2 metastasis and survival for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology. 2022;302(1):200-211.

32.

Evain

Raynaud

Ciofolo-Veit

, et al. Breast nodule classification with two-dimensional ultrasound using Mask-RCNN ensemble aggregation. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2021;102(11):653-658.

33.

Hamm

Wang

Savic

, et al. Deep learning for liver tumor diagnosis part I: development of a convolutional neural network classifier for multi-phasic MRI. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(7):3338-3347.

34.

Dana

Lefebvre

Savadjiev

, et al. Malignancy risk stratification of cystic renal lesions based on a contrast-enhanced CT-based machine learning model and a clinical decision algorithm. Eur Radiol. 2022;32(6):4116-4127.

35.

Watson

Lyman

Passeri

, et al. Use of artificial intelligence deep learning to determine the malignant potential of pancreatic cystic neoplasms with preoperative computed tomography imaging. Am Surg. 2021;87(4):602-607.

36.

Mainenti

Stanzione

Cuocolo

, et al. MRI radiomics: a machine learning approach for the risk stratification of endometrial cancer patients. Eur J Radiol. 2022;149:110226.

37.

Hsu

T-MH

Schawkat

Berkowitz

, et al. Artificial intelligence to assess body composition on routine abdominal CT scans and predict mortality in pancreatic cancer–a recipe for your local application. Eur J Radiol. 2021;142:109834.

38.

Castellino

. Computer aided detection (CAD): an overview. Cancer Imaging. 2005;5(1):17.

39.

Chan

Hadjiiski

Samala

. Computer-aided diagnosis in the era of deep learning. Med Phys. 2020;47(5):e218-e227.

40.

Masud

Al-Rei

Lokker

. Computer-aided detection for breast cancer screening in clinical settings: scoping review. JMIR Med Inform. 2019;7(3):e12660.

41.

Becker

Marcon

Ghafoor

Wurnig

Frauenfelder

Boss

. Deep learning in mammography: diagnostic accuracy of a multipurpose image analysis software in the detection of breast cancer. Invest Radiol. 2017;52(7):434-440.

42.

Gilbert

Astley

McGee

, et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection and double reading of screening mammograms in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program. Radiology. 2006;241(1):47-53.

43.

MacMahon

Naidich

Goo

, et al. Guidelines for management of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on CT images: from the Fleischner Society 2017. Radiology. 2017;284(1):228-243.

44.

Lee

Seo

Yun

, et al. Deep learning applications in chest radiography and computed tomography. J Thorac Imaging. 2019;34(2):75-85.

45.

Liu

Huang

Lin

Luo

. Evaluating the performance of a deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (DL–CAD) system for detecting and characterizing lung nodules: comparison with the performance of double reading by radiologists. Thorac Cancer. 2019;10(2):183-192.

46.

Blanc

Racine

Khalil

, et al. Artificial intelligence solution to classify pulmonary nodules on CT. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2020;101(12):803-810.

47.

Nam

Park

Hwang

, et al. Development and validation of deep learning-based automatic detection algorithm for malignant pulmonary nodules on chest radiographs. Radiology. 2019;290(1):218-228.

48.

Trilisky

Dachman

Wroblewski

Vannier

Horne

. CT colonography with computer-aided detection: recognizing the causes of false-positive reader results. Radiographics. 2014;34(7):1885-1905.

49.

Vos

Hambrock

Barenstz

Huisman

. Computer-assisted analysis of peripheral zone prostate lesions using T2-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55(6):1719.

50.

Giannini

Mazzetti

Armando

, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate with computer-aided detection: experienced observer performance study. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(10):4200-4208.

51.

Aissa

Schaarschmidt

Below

, et al. Performance and clinical impact of machine learning based lung nodule detection using vessel suppression in melanoma patients. Clin Imaging. 2018;52:328-333.

52.

Saxena

Jena

Gupta

, et al. Role of artificial intelligence in radiogenomics for cancers in the era of precision medicine. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(12):2860.

53.

Sharma

Kannourakis

Prithiviraj

Ahmed

. Precision medicine–an optimal approach to patient care in Renal Cell Carcinoma. Front Med. 2022;9:1240. Published online 2022.

54.

McCarthy

McLeod

Ginsburg

. Genomic medicine: a decade of successes, challenges, and opportunities. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(189):189sr4.

55.

Banna

Olivier

Rundo

, et al. The promise of digital biopsy for the prediction of tumor molecular features and clinical outcomes associated with immunotherapy. Front Med. 2019;6:172.

56.

Martin-Gonzalez

Crispin-Ortuzar

Rundo

, et al. Integrative radiogenomics for virtual biopsy and treatment monitoring in ovarian cancer. Insights Imaging. 2020;11(1):1-10.

57.

Aerts

HJWL

Velazquez

Leijenaar

RTH

, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun. 2014;5(1):1-9.

58.

Colen

Foster

Gatenby

, et al. NCI Workshop report: clinical and computational requirements for correlating imaging phenotypes with genomics signatures. Transl Oncol. 2014;7(5):556-569.

59.

Liu

Kim

Balagurunathan

, et al. Radiomic features are associated with EGFR mutation status in lung adenocarcinomas. Clin Lung Cancer. 2016;17(5):441-448.

60.

Velazquez

Parmar

Liu

, et al. Somatic mutations drive distinct imaging phenotypes in lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2017;77(14):3922-3930.

61.

Zhang

Chen

Liu

, et al. Quantitative biomarkers for prediction of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation in non-small cell lung cancer. Transl Oncol. 2018;11(1):94-101.

62.

Yoon

Sohn

Cho

, et al. Decoding tumor phenotypes for ALK, ROS1, and RET fusions in lung adenocarcinoma using a radiomics approach. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(41):1753.

63.

Bakas

Akbari

Pisapia

, et al. In vivo detection of EGFRvIII in glioblastoma via perfusion magnetic resonance imaging signature consistent with deep peritumoral infiltration: the φ-index. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(16):4724-4734.

64.

Zhou

Vallières

Bai

, et al. MRI features predict survival and molecular markers in diffuse lower-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2017;19(6):862-870.

65.

Zhang

Yan

L-F

Y-C

, et al. Optimizing a machine learning based glioma grading system using multi-parametric MRI histogram and texture features. Oncotarget. 2017;8(29):47816.

66.

Levner

Drabycz

Roldan

De Robles

Cairncross

Mitchell

. Predicting MGMT methylation status of glioblastomas from MRI texture. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer; 2009:522-530.

67.

Hau

Stupp

Hegi

. MGMT methylation status: the advent of stratified therapy in glioblastoma? Dis Markers. 2007;23(1-2):97-104.

68.

Chang

Grinband

Weinberg

, et al. Deep-learning convolutional neural networks accurately classify genetic mutations in gliomas. Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39(7):1201-1207.

69.

Brown

Zlatescu

Sijben

, et al. The use of magnetic resonance imaging to noninvasively detect genetic signatures in oligodendroglioma. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(8):2357-2362.

70.

Sun

Wang

, et al. Identifying relations between imaging phenotypes and molecular subtypes of breast cancer: model discovery and external validation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;46(4):1017-1027.

71.

Grimm

Zhang

Baker

Soo

Johnson

Mazurowski

. Relationships between MRI breast imaging-reporting and data system (BI–RADS) lexicon descriptors and breast cancer molecular subtypes: internal enhancement is associated with luminal B subtype. Breast J. 2017;23(5):579-582.

72.

Zhu

Guo

, et al. Deciphering genomic underpinnings of quantitative MRI-based radiomic phenotypes of invasive breast carcinoma. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):1-10.

73.

Lee

Han

Kwak

Lee

Kim

E-K

. Radiomics of US texture features in differential diagnosis between triple-negative breast cancer and fibroadenoma. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1-8.

74.

Guo

Qiao

, et al. Radiomics analysis on ultrasound for prediction of biologic behavior in breast invasive ductal carcinoma. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18(3):e335-e344.

75.

Santone

Brunese

Donnarumma

, et al. Radiomic features for prostate cancer grade detection through formal verification. Radiol Med. 2021;126(5):688-697.

76.

Chen

, et al. Non-invasive prediction of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer by a genetic algorithm-enhanced artificial neural network-based CT radiomics signature. Eur Radiol. 2022:1-12. Published online 2022.

77.

Yang

Dong

Fang

, et al.

Can CT-based radiomics signature predict KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutations in colorectal cancer?

Eur Radiol. 2018;28(5):2058-2067.

78.

Virzì

Muller

Marret

J-B

, et al. Comprehensive review of 3D segmentation software tools for MRI usable for pelvic surgery planning. J Digit Imaging. 2020;33(1):99-110.

79.

Bankman

. Handbook of Medical Image Processing and Analysis. Elsevier; 2008.

80.

Cellina

Gibelli

Floridi

Oliva

. Volumetric analysis of non-contrast magnetic resonance lymphangiography in patients affected by lower extremities primary lymphedema. Radiol Med. 2020;125(4):432-435.

81.

Lei

Wang

Curran

Liu

Yang

. A review of deep learning based methods for medical image multi-organ segmentation. Phys Medica. 2021;85:107-122.

82.

Maier

Syben

Lasser

Riess

. A gentle introduction to deep learning in medical image processing. Z Med Phys. 2019;29(2):86-101.

83.

Gibelli

Cellina

Gibelli

, et al. Assessing symmetry of zygomatic bone through three-dimensional segmentation on computed tomography scan and “mirroring” procedure: a contribution for reconstructive maxillofacial surgery. J Cranio Maxillo Surg. 2018;46(4):600-604.

84.

Cappella

Gibelli

Cellina

, et al. Three-dimensional analysis of sphenoid sinus uniqueness for assessing personal identification: a novel method based on 3D-3D superimposition. Int J Legal Med. 2019;133(6):1895-1901.

85.

Menze

Jakab

Bauer

, et al. The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014;34(10):1993-2024.

86.

Kinoshita

Miyashita

Tsutsui

Furuta

Nakada

. Critical neural networks in awake surgery for gliomas. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2016;56(11):674-686.

87.

Han

Gao

, et al. Deep learning in prostate cancer diagnosis using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with whole-mount histopathology referenced delineations. Front Med. 2021;8:1-10.

88.

Aldoj

Biavati

Michallek

Stober

Dewey

. Automatic prostate and prostate zones segmentation of magnetic resonance images using DenseNet-like U-net. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1-17.

89.

Comelli

Dahiya

Stefano

, et al. Deep learning-based methods for prostate segmentation in magnetic resonance imaging. Appl Sci. 2021;11(2):782.

90.

Cusumano

Placidi

Teodoli

, et al. On the accuracy of bulk synthetic CT for MR-guided online adaptive radiotherapy. Radiol Med. 2020;125(2):157-164.

91.

Kazemifar

McGuire

Timmerman

, et al. MRI-only brain radiotherapy: assessing the dosimetric accuracy of synthetic CT images generated using a deep learning approach. Radiother Oncol. 2019;136:56-63.

92.

Neppl

Landry

Kurz

, et al. Evaluation of proton and photon dose distributions recalculated on 2D and 3D Unet-generated pseudoCTs from T1-weighted MR head scans. Acta Oncol (Madr). 2019;58(10):1429-1434.

93.

Liu

Yadav

Baschnagel

McMillan

. MR-based treatment planning in radiation therapy using a deep learning approach. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(3):105-114.

94.

Jin

, et al. Predicting treatment response from longitudinal images using multi-task deep learning. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):1-11.

95.

Eisenhauer

Therasse

Bogaerts

, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228-247.

96.

Hodi

Hwu

W-J

Kefford

, et al. Evaluation of immune-related response criteria and RECIST v1. 1 in patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(13):1510.

97.

Shan

Chen

, et al. CT-based radiomics for preoperative prediction of early recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: technical reproducibility of acquisition and scanners. Radiol Med. 2020;125(8):697-705.

98.

Chen

Zhang

, et al. Current status and quality of radiomic studies for predicting immunotherapy response and outcome in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; 49:345-360. Published online 2021.

99.

Jiao

Xiao

, et al. Integration of deep learning radiomics and counts of circulating tumor cells improves prediction of outcomes of early stage NSCLC patients treated with SBRT. Age (Omaha). 2021;68(4):1045-1054.

100.

Chen

Gao

Zhang

Liang

Zou

. Attention-based multi-NMF deep neural network with multimodality data for breast cancer prognosis model. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:1-11.

101.

Montazeri

Beigzadeh

. Machine learning models in breast cancer survival prediction. Technol Heal Care. 2016;24(1):31-42.

102.

Kim

J-Y

Lee

, et al. Deep learning based prediction model for breast cancer (BC) recurrence using adjuvant BC cohort in tertiary cancer center registry. Front Oncol. 2021;11:655.

103.

Chin

Karcich

, et al. Prior to initiation of chemotherapy, can we predict breast tumor response? Deep learning convolutional neural networks approach using a breast MRI tumor dataset. J Digit Imaging. 2019;32(5):693-701.

104.

Braman

Prasanna

Whitney

, et al. Association of peritumoral radiomics with tumor biology and pathologic response to preoperative targeted therapy for HER2 (ERBB2)-positive breast cancer. JAMA Network Open. 2019;2(4):e192561.

105.

Chiloiro

Cusumano

de Franco

, et al. Does restaging MRI radiomics analysis improve pathological complete response prediction in rectal cancer patients? A prognostic model development. Radiol Med. 2021;127(1):1-10. Published online 2021.

106.

Spieler

Sabottke

Moawad

, et al. Artificial intelligence in assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment response. Abdom Radiol. 2021;46(8):3660-3671.

107.

Abajian

Murali

Savic

, et al. Predicting treatment response to intra-arterial therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma with the use of supervised machine learning—an artificial intelligence concept. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29(6):850-857.

108.

G-H

Xiao

Shao

Z-M

Jiang

Y-Z

. Technological advances in cancer immunity: from immunogenomics to single-cell analysis and artificial intelligence. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2021;6(1):1-23.

109.

Khorrami

Prasanna

Gupta

, et al. Changes in CT radiomic features associated with lymphocyte distribution predict overall survival and response to immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer TIL-related radiomics predicts OS and immunotherapy response. Cancer Immunol Res. 2020;8(1):108-119.

110.

Sun

Limkin

Vakalopoulou

, et al. A radiomics approach to assess tumour-infiltrating CD8 cells and response to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy: an imaging biomarker, retrospective multicohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(9):1180-1191.

111.

Zhang

, et al. A combined-radiomics approach of CT images to predict response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in NSCLC: a retrospective multicenter study. Front Oncol. 2021;11:1-13.

112.

Khene

Mathieu

Peyronnet

, et al. Radiomics can predict tumour response in patients treated with nivolumab for a metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an artificial intelligence concept. World J Urol. 2021;39(9):3707-3709.

113.

Basler

Gabryś

Hogan

, et al. Radiomics, tumor volume, and blood biomarkers for early prediction of pseudoprogression in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibition radiomics and biomarkers for prediction of pseudoprogression. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(16):4414-4425.

114.

Chiu

Y-C

Chen

H-IH

Zhang

, et al. Predicting drug response of tumors from integrated genomic profiles by deep neural networks. BMC Med Genomics. 2019;12(1):1.

115.

Huang

Lakowski

. Predicting breast cancer drug response using a multiple-layer cell line drug response network model. BMC Cancer. 2021;21(1):1-15.

116.

Lisson

Mezger

, et al. Deep neural networks and machine learning radiomics modelling for prediction of relapse in mantle cell lymphoma. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(8):2008.

117.

Vicini

Bortolotto

Rengo

, et al. A narrative review on current imaging applications of artificial intelligence and radiomics in oncology: focus on the three most common cancers. Radiol Med. 2022;127(8):1-18. Published online 2022.

118.

Sollini

Gelardi

Matassa

Bolton

RCD

Chiti

Kirienko

. Interdisciplinarity: an essential requirement for translation of radiomics research into clinical practice–a systematic review focused on thoracic oncology. Rev Española Med Nucl Imagen Mol (English Ed). 2020;39(3):146-156.

119.

van der Pol

Tang

. Imaging database preparation for machine learning. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2021;72(1):9-10.

120.

Porenta

. Is there value for artificial intelligence applications in molecular imaging and nuclear medicine? J Nucl Med. 2019;60(10):1347-1349.

121.

Soda

D’Amico

Tessadori

, et al. AIforCOVID: predicting the clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 applying AI to chest-X-rays. An Italian multicentre study. Med Image Anal. 2021;74:102216.

122.

Hosny

Schabath

, et al. Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: clinical challenges and applications. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(2):127-157.

123.

Baselli

Codari

Sardanelli

. Opening the black box of machine learning in radiology: can the proximity of annotated cases be a way? Eur Radiol Exp. 2020;4(1):1-7.

124.

Sollini

Bartoli

Marciano

Zanca

Slart

RHJA

Erba

. Artificial intelligence and hybrid imaging: the best match for personalized medicine in oncology. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2020;4(1):1-22.

125.

Chen

Stavropoulou

Narasinkan

Baker

Scarbrough

. Professionals’ responses to the introduction of AI innovations in radiology and their implications for future adoption: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1-9.

126.

Huisman

Ranschaert

Parker

, et al. An international survey on AI in radiology in 1,041 radiologists and radiology residents part 1: fear of replacement, knowledge, and attitude. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(9):7058-7066.

127.

Haan

Ongena

Hommes

Kwee

Yakar

. A qualitative study to understand patient perspective on the use of artificial intelligence in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(10):1416-1419.

128.

Zhang

Citardi

Wang

Genc

Shan

Fan

. Patients’ perceptions of using artificial intelligence (AI)-based technology to comprehend radiology imaging data. Health Inform J. 2021;27(2):14604582211011216.