4.4 Review

A review on radiomics and the future of theranostics for patient selection in precision medicine

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 91, 期 1091, 页码 -

出版社

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170926

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The growing complexity and volume of clinical data and the associated decision-making processes in oncology promote the advent of precision medicine. Precision (or personalised) medicine describes preventive and/or treatment procedures that take individual patient variability into account when proscribing treatment, and has been hindered in the past by the strict requirements of accurate, robust, repeatable and preferably non-invasive biomarkers to stratify both the patient and the disease. In oncology, tumour subtypes are traditionally measured through repeated invasive biopsies, which are taxing for the patient and are cost and labour intensive. Quantitative analysis of routine clinical imaging provides an opportunity to capture tumour heterogeneity non-invasively, cost-effectively and on large scale. In current clinical practice radiological images are qualitatively analysed by expert radiologists whose interpretation is known to suffer from inter-and intra-operator variability. Radiomics, the high-throughput mining of image features from medical images, provides a quantitative and robust method to assess tumour heterogeneity, and radiomics-based signatures provide a powerful tool for precision medicine in cancer treatment. This study aims to provide an overview of the current state of radiomics as a precision medicine decision support tool. We first provide an overview of the requirements and challenges radiomics currently faces in being incorporated as a tool for precision medicine, followed by an outline of radiomics' current applications in the treatment of various types of cancer. We finish with a discussion of possible future advances that can further develop radiomics as a precision medicine tool.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据