ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Predicting early response to ablative radiotherapy in oligometastatic disease: a scoping review of radiomics-based machine learning and deep learning models.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOligometastatic disease represents an intermediate stage of cancer, often treated with surgery or ablative radiotherapy (ART). This scoping review aimed to systematically summarize current evidence on the use of radiomics, including machine learning and deep learning approaches, to predict response to ART. We also aimed to assess the methodological quality and reporting transparency of published studies, identifying gaps and opportunities for future research. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar identified studies that used radiomics for predicting ART response. Two reviewers independently selected and assessed the methodological quality using the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) and the METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS). In addition, reporting transparency was evaluated using the CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research (CLEAR). This scoping review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.
resultsThe systematic search identified 9463 records, of which 29 studies (3946 patients) were included. Most studies used MRI-derived features, with 24 focusing on brain metastases. Radiomics-based models demonstrated variable predictive performance (area under the curve, AUC: 0.69-0.95), with deep learning models achieving the highest accuracies (AUC: 0.85-1.00). Methodological quality of the studies was moderate (mean RQS: 13; METRICS: 64.2-78%).
conclusionRadiomics-based models show potential for identifying patients unlikely to benefit from ART, but their clinical implementation remains limited, especially for extracranial metastases. Future research should focus on multicenter, prospective studies with standardized protocols, incorporating clinical and dosimetric data for broader clinical application. KEY POINTS: Question Can radiomics-based predictive models reliably assess treatment response to ablative radiotherapy in oligometastatic disease, and how robust is the current methodological evidence supporting their use? Findings Radiomics models show encouraging predictive performance, mainly for brain metastases, yet substantial methodological heterogeneity and limited validation hinder their clinical translation. Clinical relevance Radiomics-based prediction models hold potential for identifying patients unlikely to benefit from ablative radiotherapy, enabling more personalized treatment. Further prospective, multicenter, and methodologically standardized studies are essential before clinical implementation.
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.