Benchmarking Foundation Models for Renal Lesion Stratification in CT

While foundation models in radiology are expected to be applied to various clinical tasks, computational cost constraints remain a major challenge when training on 3D-CT volumetric data. In this study, we propose TotalFM, a radiological foundation model that efficiently learns the correspondence between 3D-CT images and linguistic expressions based on the concept of organ separation, utilizing a large-scale dataset of 140,000 series. By automating the creation of organ volume and finding-sentence pairs through segmentation techniques and Large Language Model (LLM)-based radiology report processing, and by combining self-supervised pre-training via VideoMAE with contrastive learning using volume-text pairs, we aimed to balance computational efficiency and representation capability. In zero-shot organ-wise lesion classification tasks, the proposed model achieved higher F1 scores in 83% (5/6) of organs compared to CT-CLIP and 64% (9/14) of organs compared to Merlin. These results suggest that the proposed model exhibits high generalization performance in a clinical evaluation setting using actual radiology report sentences. Furthermore, in zero-shot finding-wise lesion classification tasks, our model achieved a higher AUROC in 83% (25/30) of finding categories compared to Merlin. We also confirmed performance comparable to existing Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in radiology report generation tasks. Our results demonstrate that the organ-separated learning framework can serve as a realistic and effective design guideline for the practical implementation of 3D-CT foundation models. The source code and pretrained models are publicly available at https://github.com/jichi-labo/TotalFM.

Accurate preoperative subtype classification of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from contrast-enhanced computed tomography remains clinically challenging. Radiomics provides structured tumour descriptors, whereas foundation representations offer transferable image features. However, it remains unclear whether radiomics still adds value beyond pretrained representations, and how 2D and 3D MedVAE encoders compare in this setting. We compared handcrafted radiomics, 2D MedVAE, 3D MedVAE, and their fusion for binary clear-cell RCC versus non-clear-cell RCC classification on KiTS23 under a unified preprocessing pipeline. Concatenation, cross-attention, and gated fusion were evaluated as representative integration strategies, and radiomics feature importance was analysed to support decision-centric interpretability. Fusion consistently improved discrimination over image-only MedVAE branches. The best overall performance was achieved by 3D gated fusion, with an AUC of 82.7%, outperforming the best 2D fusion model (79.6%), the radiomics baseline (74.4%), and the single-modality MedVAE branches. Ablation analysis further showed clear gains of the full fusion model over both image-only and radiomics-only variants, indicating complementary contributions from radiomics and image representations. These findings suggest that radiomics remains relevant for RCC CT classification in the presence of foundation representations, and that its integration with MedVAE is more effective in the 3D setting. More broadly, the study supports a complementary role for radiomics and foundation representations in clinically meaningful imaging decision support.

Radiomics is the established approach for CT-based lung cancer phenotyping, yet comparisons with foundation models rarely isolate contributions of feature extractor, classification head, and segmentation choice, or test cross-cohort robustness. We benchmark five feature extractors (Curia, Curia-2, DINOv3, Radiomics2D, Radiomics3D), seven classification heads (TabPFN, TabICL, XGBoost, CatBoost, Random Forest, logistic regression, Ridge), and three segmentation regimes on five tasks: tumor volume and stage classification, 2-year survival prediction, histology classification, and age prediction. Models are trained on LUNG1 (n=338) and evaluated on an internal test set (n=84) and the external LUNG2 cohort (n=211), with worst-case cross-cohort performance as the primary metric. The dominant design factor is task-dependent: segmentation drives volume and stage classification, while classifier choice drives survival, histology, and age prediction. Radiomics is competitive for tumor volume, tumor stage and survival (partly due to label-derivation effects for the former); Curia variants reach comparable peak scores for survival; DINOv3 falls slightly short across tasks. Patch and slice aggregation have negligible impact. We recommend Curia with tumor segmentation and a CatBoost head as a safe default, achieving the best mean rank across the three primary clinical tasks, though task-specific selection consistently outperforms any cross-task default. When tumor delineations are unavailable, Curia-2 with lung segmentation and logistic regression offers a competitive alternative. All pipelines use a two-stage design suited to small cohort sizes where end-to-end fine-tuning would risk overfitting.