Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39841228›Full record

SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2025

Radiomics for prediction of perineural invasion in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ning Tang, Shicen Pan, Qirong Zhang, Jian Zhou, Zhiwei Zuo, Rui Jiang, Jinping Sheng

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Machine Learning-Based Pathomics Signature for Perineural Invasion in Colorectal Cancer.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ning TangThe General Hospital of Western Theater Command, Chengdu, Sichuan 610083, China, Chengdu, China.
Shicen PanThe General Hospital of Western Theater Command, Chengdu, Sichuan 610083, China, Chengdu, China.
Qirong ZhangThe General Hospital of Western Theater Command, Chengdu, Sichuan 610083, China, Chengdu, China.
Jian ZhouJoint Security Forces 945 Hospital, Yaan, China.
Zhiwei ZuoThe General Hospital of Western Theater Command, Chengdu, Sichuan 610083, China, Chengdu, China.
Rui JiangThe General Hospital of Western Theater Command, Chengdu, Sichuan 610083, China, Chengdu, China. jiangrui202304@163.com.
Jinping ShengThe General Hospital of Western Theater Command, Chengdu, Sichuan 610083, China, Chengdu, China. Johnson_sheng@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerineural invasion (PNI) in colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant prognostic factor associated with poor outcomes. Radiomics, which involves extracting quantitative features from medical imaging, has emerged as a potential tool for predicting PNI. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of radiomics models in predicting PNI in CRC.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published up to July 28, 2024. Inclusion criteria focused on studies using radiomics models to predict PNI in CRC with sufficient data to construct diagnostic accuracy metrics. The quality of the included studies was assessed using QUADAS-2 and METRICS tools. Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed based on imaging modalities, segmentation methods, and other variables.

resultsTwelve studies comprising 2853 patients were included in the systematic review, with ten studies contributing to the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for radiomics models in predicting PNI were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.63-0.82) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79-0.90), respectively, in the training cohorts. In the validation cohorts, the sensitivity was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.57-0.72), and specificity was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.89). The AUC was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.63-0.82) for the training cohorts and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87) for the validation cohorts, indicating good diagnostic accuracy. The METRICS scores for the included studies ranged from 65.8 to 85.1%, with an overall average score of 67.25%, reflecting good methodological quality. However, significant heterogeneity was observed across studies, particularly in sensitivity and specificity estimates.

conclusionRadiomics models show promise as a non-invasive tool for predicting PNI in CRC, with moderate to good diagnostic accuracy. However, the current study's limitations, including reliance on retrospective data, geographic concentration in China, and methodological variability, suggest that further research is needed. Future studies should focus on prospective designs, standardization of methodologies, and the integration of advanced machine-learning techniques to improve the clinical applicability and reliability of radiomics models in CRC management.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsNeoplasm InvasivenessPeripheral NervesHumansRadiomicsSensitivity and SpecificityArtificial intelligenceColorectal cancerMETRICS scoreNeural invasionRectal cancer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.