BACKGROUND: Here, we conducted a scoping review to (i) establish which machine learning (ML) methods have been applied to hematological malignancy imaging; (ii) establish how ML is being applied to hematological cancer radiology; and (iii) identify addressable research gaps. METHODS: The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The inclusion criteria were (i) pediatric and adult patients with suspected or confirmed hematological malignancy undergoing imaging (population); (ii) any study using ML techniques to derive models using radiological images to apply to the clinical management of these patients (concept); and (iii) original research articles conducted in any setting globally (context). Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 criteria were used to assess diagnostic and segmentation studies, while the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of observational studies. RESULTS: Of 53 eligible studies, 33 applied diverse ML techniques to diagnose hematological malignancies or to differentiate them from other diseases, especially discriminating gliomas from primary central nervous system lymphomas (n=18); 11 applied ML to segmentation tasks, while 9 applied ML to prognostication or predicting therapeutic responses, especially for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. All studies reported discrimination statistics, but no study calculated calibration statistics. Every diagnostic/segmentation study had a high risk of bias due to their case-control design; many studies failed to provide adequate details of the reference standard; and only a few studies used independent validation. CONCLUSION: To deliver validated ML-based models to radiologists managing hematological malignancies, future studies should (i) adhere to standardized, high-quality reporting guidelines such as the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging; (ii) validate models in independent cohorts; (ii) standardize volume segmentation methods for segmentation tasks; (iv) establish comprehensive prospective studies that include different tumor grades, comparisons with radiologists, optimal imaging modalities, sequences, and planes; (v) include side-by-side comparisons of different methods; and (vi) include low- and middle-income countries in multicentric studies to enhance generalizability and reduce inequity.

• Klíčová slova
• artificial intelligence, hematological malignancy, machine learning, radiology, scoping review,
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• scoping review MeSH

BACKGROUND: Oncopanel genomic testing, which identifies important somatic variants, is increasingly common in medical practice and especially in clinical trials. Currently, there is a paucity of reliable genomic reference samples having a suitably large number of pre-identified variants for properly assessing oncopanel assay analytical quality and performance. The FDA-led Sequencing and Quality Control Phase 2 (SEQC2) consortium analyze ten diverse cancer cell lines individually and their pool, termed Sample A, to develop a reference sample with suitably large numbers of coding positions with known (variant) positives and negatives for properly evaluating oncopanel analytical performance. RESULTS: In reference Sample A, we identify more than 40,000 variants down to 1% allele frequency with more than 25,000 variants having less than 20% allele frequency with 1653 variants in COSMIC-related genes. This is 5-100× more than existing commercially available samples. We also identify an unprecedented number of negative positions in coding regions, allowing statistical rigor in assessing limit-of-detection, sensitivity, and precision. Over 300 loci are randomly selected and independently verified via droplet digital PCR with 100% concordance. Agilent normal reference Sample B can be admixed with Sample A to create new samples with a similar number of known variants at much lower allele frequency than what exists in Sample A natively, including known variants having allele frequency of 0.02%, a range suitable for assessing liquid biopsy panels. CONCLUSION: These new reference samples and their admixtures provide superior capability for performing oncopanel quality control, analytical accuracy, and validation for small to large oncopanels and liquid biopsy assays.

• MeSH
• alely * MeSH
• frekvence genu * MeSH
• genetická heterogenita MeSH
• genetická variace * MeSH
• genetické testování metody   normy   MeSH
• genomika metody   normy   MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• nádorové biomarkery * MeSH
• nádorové buněčné linie MeSH
• nádory diagnóza   genetika   MeSH
• průběh práce MeSH
• variabilita počtu kopií segmentů DNA MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• Názvy látek
• nádorové biomarkery * MeSH