Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 17, 2025
Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Bone Metastases in an Experimental Rat Model
Published on: August 16, 2020
Is radiomic MRI a feasible alternative to OncotypeDX® recurrence score testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis
M G Davey1, M S Davey1, É J Ryan1
1Department of Surgery, The Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Background:
OncotypeDX® recurrence score (RS) aids therapeutic decision-making in oestrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. Radiomics is an evolving field that aims to examine the relationship between radiological features and the underlying genomic landscape of disease processes. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of current evidence evaluating the comparability of radiomics and RS.
Methods:
A systematic review was performed as per PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing radiomic MRI tumour analyses and RS were identified. Sensitivity, specificity and area under curve (AUC) delineating low risk (RS less than 18) versus intermediate-high risk (equal to or greater than 18) and low-intermediate risk (RS less than 30) and high risk (RS greater than 30) were recorded. Log rate ratios (lnRR) and standard error were determined from AUC and 95 per cent confidence intervals.
Results:
Nine studies including 1216 patients met inclusion criteria; the mean age at diagnosis was 52.9 years. Mean RS was 16 (range 0-75); 401 patients with RS less than 18, 287 patients with RS 18-30 and 100 patients with RS greater than 30. Radiomic analysis and RS were comparable for differentiating RS less than 18 versus RS 18 or greater (RR 0.93 (95 per cent c.i. 0.85 to 1.01); P = 0.010, heterogeneity (I2)=0%) as well as RS less than 30 versus RS 30 or greater (RR 0.76 (95 per cent c.i. 0.70 to 0.83); P < 0.001, I2=0%). MRI sensitivity and specificity for RS less than 18 versus 18 or greater was 0.89 (95 per cent c.i. 0.85 to 0.93) and 0.72 (95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 0.78) respectively, and 0.79 (95 per cent c.i. 0.72 to 0.86) and 0.74 (95 per cent c.i. 0.68 to 0.80) for RS less than 30 versus 30 or greater.
Conclusion:
Radiomic tumour analysis is comparable to RS in differentiating patients into clinically relevant subgroups. For patients requiring MRI, radiomics may complement and enhance RS for prognostication and therapeutic decision making in ER+ breast cancer.
