Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 24;14(7):1654. doi: 10.3390/cancers14071654

Table 3.

Radiomics studies in pancreatic cancer detection and diagnosis.

Reference Image Software Endpoints Segmentation Process (Number of Readers) Sample Size (Training + Validation) Number of Features Extracted Results
Benedetti et al.
[48]
CT In house with Matlab Discriminating histopathologic characteristics of PNET Manual (1) 39 69 Best AUC = 0.86
Bevilacqua et al.
[49]
PET/CT In house with Matlab Grade 1 vs. 2 primary PNET Manual (1) 25 + 26 (model A)
26 + 25 (model B)
51 (model C)
60 Best performance was achieved by model A test AUC = 0.90
Bian et al.
[50]
MRI Pyradiomics G1 vs. G2/3 grades in patients with PNETs Manual (2) 157 1409 AUC = 0.775
Bian et al.
[51]
MRI Pyradiomics PNET grades Manual (1) 97 + 42 3328 AUC = 0.851 (training)
AUC = 0.736 (validation)
Canellas et al.
[52]
CT TexRAD Differentiating
PNET grades
Manual (2) 101 36 Accuracy of 79.3% for differentiating grade1 vs. grades 2/3.
Chang et al.
[53]
CT IBEX Histological grades of PDAC Manual (2) 151 + 150 (local) +100 (external validation) 1452 AUCs = 0.961 (training), AUC = 0.910 (local validation), and
AUC = 0.770 (external validation)
Chen et al.
[54]
CT Pyradiomics Differentiating PDAC from normal pancreas Manual (2) 915 + 200 (local test) + 264 (external test) 88 AUC = 0.98 (local test)
AUC = 0.91 (external test)
Chu et al.
[55]
CT Pyradiomics Differentiating PDAC from normal pancreas Manual (3) 255 + 125 478 AUC = 0.999
Deng et al.
[56]
MRI IBEX DifferentiatingPDAC and MFCP lesions Manual (2) 64 + 55 410 AUCs for the T1WI, T2WI, A and, P and clinical models were 0.893, 0.911, 0.958, 0.997 and 0.516 in the primary cohort, and 0.882, 0.902, 0.920, 0.962 and 0.649 in the validation cohort.
Gu et al.
[57]
MRI Artificial Intelligence Kit SPN vs. differential diseases (PDAC, NET, and cystadenoma) manual (2) 48 + 113 2376 In validation, AUC = 0.853 for T2 (best performing single sequence), AUC = 0.925 for multi-parametric MRI radiomics model, and AUC = 0.962 for radiomics + clinical model.
Li et al.
[58]
CT Fire Voxel Atypical PNET vs. PDAC Manual (2) 75 <20 Best AUC = 0.887
Linning et al.
[59]
CT In house with Matlab PDAC vs. autoimmune pancreatitis Manual (2) 96 (5-fold cross validation) 1160 AUC = 0.977
Liu et al.
[60]
PET/CT Pyradiomics PDAC vs. autoimmune pancreatitis Manual (2) 112 (10-fold cross validation) 502 AUC= 0.967
Liu et al.
[61]
CT and MRI Pyradiomics PNET grades Manual (2) 82 + 41 1209 AUC = 0.92 (training)
AUC = 0.85 (validation)
Park et al.
[62]
CT Pyradiomics PDAC vs. autoimmune pancreatitis Manual (4) 120 + 62 431 AUC = 0.975
Reinert et al.
[63]
CT Pyradiomics Differentiating PDAC from PanNEN Manual (1) 95 92 8 features highly significant (p < 0.005)
Ren et al.
[64]
CT Analysis Kit software Pancreatic adenosquamous carcinoma vs. PDAC Manual (1) 112
7:3 ratio
792 Average AUC of 0.82
Song et al.
[65]
MRI Pyradiomics Differentiating NF-PNET and SPN Manual (2) 79 (7:3 ratio) 396 AUC = 0.978 (radiomics) and AUC = 0.965 (radiomics + clinical) in the training set
AUC = 0.907 (radiomics) and AUC = 0.920 (radiomics + clinical) in the validation set
Xing et al.
[66]
PET/CT Pyradiomics Pathological grades in PDAC Manual (2) 99 + 50 about 3000 AUC o = 0.994 (training)
AUC = 0.921 (validation)
Zhang et al.
[67]
CT LifeX Pathological grades of PNETs Manual (3) 82
3:1 ratio
40 AUC = 0.82 (G1 vs. G2), 0.70 (G2 vs. G3), and 0.85 (G1 vs. G3), respectively
Zhao et al.
[68]
CT In house with Matlab Grade 1 vs. 2 in PNET Manual (2) 59 + 40 585 AUC = 0.968 (training)
AUC= 0.876 (validation)

Abbreviations used in this table: Area Under Curve (AUC), Mass-forming Chronic Pancreatitis (MFCP), Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasm (PanNEN), Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (PDAC), Neuroendocrine Tumor (NET) or Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor (PNET), Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm (SPN).