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.

1
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
31.2%
2
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 10%
6.8%
4
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
75 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
6
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.4%
7
Neuro-Oncology Advances
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
8
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.2%
9
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
10
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.0%
11
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
12
Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
14
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
15
Annals of Translational Medicine
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
16
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
17
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
18
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
19
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.0%
20
Gut
40 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
21
Cancer Research
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
22
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
24
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
25
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
26
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 68%
0.6%