SynthesisThe British journal of radiology2025
Radiogenomic profiling to determine BRCA alteration status-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesApproximately 10% of breast and 20% of ovarian cancers are hereditary in nature. The most commonly implicated genes are the BRCA genes, and the current gold standard for testing is by direct DNA sequencing. This process is expensive, time-consuming, and has a turnaround time of several weeks. Radiogenomics involves extracting quantitative data from medical imaging and using mathematical models to predict the underlying genetic makeup of tissues.
aimTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the accuracy of radiogenomics in determining BRCA alteration status.
methodsA systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Diagnostic test accuracy analyses (i.e. pooled sensitivity and specificity) were performed. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan V5.4.
resultsThirteen studies compromising 2835 patients were included. Of these, 857 were BRCA alteration carriers. The mean age of patients was 46 years. Radiogenomic methods correctly identified BRCA alteration with a strong diagnostic test accuracy (pooled sensitivity: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.84, pooled specificity: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.78-0.83).
conclusionsRadiogenomics may be an accurate method to predict BRCA alterations. However, these findings should be validated in larger, prospective studies to determine their utility in clinical practice. Until further refinement of these methods, DNA sequencing should remain the gold standard. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis that has been carried out on this topic. We believe that our results demonstrate the potential clinical utility radiogenomics could have in the BRCA alteration testing process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.