Author
Listed:
- Yuxia Fu
- Jialin Zhou
- Junfeng Li
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer (BC) diagnosis and treatment rely heavily on molecular markers such as HER2, Ki67, PR, and ER. Currently, these markers are identified by invasive methods. Objective: This meta-analysis investigates the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-based radiomics as a novel approach to predicting these markers. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify studies evaluating ultrasound-based radiomics in BC. Inclusion criteria encompassed research on HER2, Ki67, PR, and ER as key molecular markers. Quality assessment using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) was performed. The data extraction step was performed systematically. Results: Our meta-analysis quantifies the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-based radiomics with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.76 and 0.78 for predicting HER2, 0.80, and 0.76 for Ki67 biomarkers. Studies did not provide sufficient data for quantitative PR and ER prediction analysis. The overall quality of studies based on the RQS tool was moderate. The QUADAS-2 evaluation showed that the studies had an unclear risk of bias regarding the flow and timing domain. Conclusion: Our analysis indicated that AI models have a promising accuracy for predicting key molecular biomarkers’ status in BC patients. We performed the quantitative analysis for HER2 and Ki67 biomarkers which yielded a moderate to high accuracy. However, studies did not provide adequate data for meta-analysis of ER and PR prediction accuracy of developed models. The overall quality of the studies was acceptable. In future research, studies need to report the results thoroughly. Also, we suggest more prospective studies from different centers.
Suggested Citation
Yuxia Fu & Jialin Zhou & Junfeng Li, 2024.
"Diagnostic performance of ultrasound-based artificial intelligence for predicting key molecular markers in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-16, May.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0303669
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303669
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0303669. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.