Back

Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI Radiomics for Predicting KRAS Mutation in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Saleh, M. M.; Hegazy, M.; Alsaied, M. A.; Elkenani, A. J.; Ehab, R.; Hesham, M.; Abdelrazek, H. M.; Nazemi, S.; Shalaby, M.; El-Hussuna, A.

2026-07-20 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.07.17.26358357 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: KRAS mutation status is an important biomarker in rectal cancer, with implications for prognosis and treatment response. MRI-based radiomics has emerged as a non-invasive approach for predicting tumor genotypes. However, the diagnostic performance of MRI radiomics for predicting KRAS mutation status remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI radiomics for predicting KRAS mutations in rectal cancer. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed through July 2025. Diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating MRI-based radiomics or artificial intelligence models for predicting KRAS mutation status in adult patients with rectal cancer were included, using molecular testing as the reference standard. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model. Results: Seven studies involving 1,224 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity was 0.736 (95% CI: 0.697-0.772) and the pooled specificity was 0.645 (95% CI: 0.586-0.701). The false positive rate was 0.355 (95% CI: 0.299-0.414). The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.754, with a normalized partial AUC of 0.666. Between-study heterogeneity ranged from low to moderate depending on the estimation method (I2 = 8.4%-53.3%). Conclusion: MRI radiomics demonstrates moderate diagnostic accuracy for predicting KRAS mutation status in rectal cancer and may serve as a promising non-invasive biomarker for preoperative molecular stratification. Further large-scale studies with external validation are required to confirm its clinical utility.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.