The Value of MRI-Based Radiomics in Predicting the Pathological Nodal Status of Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: MRI-based radiomics has emerged as a promising approach to enhance the non-invasive, presurgical assessment of lymph node staging in rectal cancer (RC). However, its clinical implementation remains limited due to methodological variability in published studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the diagnostic performance of MRI-based radiomics models for predicting pathological nodal status (pN) in RC. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published until 31 December 2024. Eligible studies applied MRI-based radiomics for pN prediction in RC patients. We excluded other imaging sources and models combining radiomics and other data (e.g., clinical). All models with available outcome metrics were included in data analysis. Data extraction and quality assessment (QUADAS-2) were performed independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses including hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) and restricted maximum likelihood estimator (REML) analyses were conducted to pool sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs). Sensitivity analyses and publication bias evaluation were also performed. Results: Sixteen studies (n = 3157 patients) were included. The HSROC showed pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.63–0.72), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.68–0.78), and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65–0.75), respectively. The mean pooled AUC and DOR obtained by REML were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.75–0.80) and 6.03 (95% CI, 4.65–7.82). Funnel plot asymmetry and Egger’s test (p = 0.025) indicated potential publication bias. Conclusions: Overall, MRI-based radiomics models demonstrated moderate accuracy in predicting pN status in RC, with some studies reporting outstanding results. However, heterogeneity in relevant methodological approaches such as the source of MRI sequences or machine learning methods applied along with possible publication bias call for further standardization and preclude their translation to clinical practice.