MRI-radiomics for MGMT promoter methylation prediction in glioma: methodological quality, systematic review, and meta-analysis
Fabio Martino Doniselli, Milan / Italy
Author Block: F. M. Doniselli, R. Pascuzzo, M. Moscatelli, M. Grisoli, L. M. Sconfienza; Milan/ITPurpose: This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and diagnostic accuracy of MRI-based radiomic studies predicting O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status in gliomas.Methods or Background: PubMed Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched to identify MRI-based radiomic studies on MGMT methylation in gliomas published until December 31, - Three raters evaluated the study methodological quality with Radiomics Quality Score (RQS, 16 components) and Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD, 22 items) scales. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed with QUADAS-2 tool. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled area under the curve (AUC) and to assess inter-study heterogeneity.
Results or Findings: We included 26 studies. The median RQS total score was 8 out of 36 (22%, range: 8%-44%). Thirteen studies performed external validation. All studies reported AUC or accuracy, but only 4 (15%) performed calibration and decision curve analysis. No studies performed phantom analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and prospective validation. The overall TRIPOD adherence score was between 50% and 70% in 16 studies and below 50% in 10 studies. The pooled AUC was - 78 (95% CI: 0.73-0.83, I2=93.4%) with a high inter-study heterogeneity. Studies with external validation and including only WHO-grade IV gliomas had significantly lower AUC values (0.65, 95% CI: 0.57-0.73, p<0.01).
Conclusion: Study RQS and adherence to TRIPOD guidelines was generally low. Radiomic prediction of MGMT methylation status showed great heterogeneity of results and lower performances in grade IV gliomas, which hinders its current implementation in clinical practice.Limitations: Some included studies did not report AUC values; grey literature was not included.Funding for this study: No funding was received for this study.Has your study been approved by an ethics committee? Not applicableEthics committee - additional information: This study was a meta-analysis.