This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The 1p/19q codeletion is a key genetic marker in gliomas and plays a crucial role in prognosis and treatment decisions. Traditional methods for detecting this genetic alteration rely on invasive tissue biopsies. PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived radiomics-based models to predict glioma 1p/19q codeletion status. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted in four databases—PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. STUDY SELECTION: We selected the studies that assessed the performance of radiomics-based models in determining 1p/19q codeletion status. DATA ANALYSIS: The METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS) was used to evaluate study quality. Pooled diagnostic estimates were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity. Deeks9 funnel plot was used to assess publication bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. A meta-analysis of 10 studies yielded a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.67-0.91), specificity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.70-0.88), positive diagnostic likelihood (DLR) of 4.14 (95%CI: 2.62-6.52), negative DLR of 0.23 (95% CI: 0.12-0.43), diagnostic odds ratio of 18.37 (95% CI: 7.36-45.85), and area under the curve of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90). Subgroup analysis revealed significant differences based on the country and segmentation method. LIMITATIONS: Our meta-analysis is limited by small number of studies with external validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-derived radiomics-based models demonstrated good predictive performance for glioma 1p/19q codeletion status, highlighting their potential as a non-invasive tool for glioma characterization and for aiding in treatment decision-making. ABBREVIATIONS: DLR: diagnostic likelihood ratio, DOR: diagnostic odds ratio, AUC =area under the curve; HOIV: holdout internal validation, EV = external validation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmadzadeh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: