# Radiomics in Gynaecological Imaging: A State-of-the-Art Review
## 6 Ovarian Pathologies
### Mri
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline
**First** & **Publication** & **Study Type** & **Geographical** & **Sample** & **Main Findings** & **ML** & **PMID** \\
**Author** & **Year** & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] \\ [154] \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{2019} & Retrospective, & \multirow{3}{*}{A} & \multirow{3}{*}{142} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Radiomics signature’s accuracy was} & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] \\ 79.7\% and 70\% for the prediction of \\ 18-month and 37-year recurrence risk \\ in the independent external \\ validation cohort \\ \end{tabular} } & LASSO, & \multirow{3}{*}{31024855} \\  & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] \\ H [164] \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{2020} & Retrospective, & \multirow{3}{*}{N} & \multirow{3}{*}{75} & The clinical–genomic model revealed an association between progression-free survival to chemotherapy & Cox regression & \multirow{3}{*}{33212885} \\  & & & & & & chemotherapy \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] \\ [148] \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{2020} & Retrospective, & \multirow{3}{*}{A} & \multirow{3}{*}{103} & The combined nomogram had an AUC of 0.92 for the differentiation in the external validation cohort & LASSO & \multirow{3}{*}{32547958} \\  & & & & & & Good performance of the radiomics & \\  & & & & & (AUC 0.83) and nomogram (AUC & 0.95) for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant ovarian tumours in the external validation tests & LASSO & \multirow{3}{*}{33888749} \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] \\ [158] \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{2021} & Retrospective, & \multirow{3}{*}{A} & \multirow{3}{*}{294} & The combined radiomics model had an AUC of 0.847 in the external validation cohort for differentiation between type I and type II epithelial ovarian cancers & LASSO & \multirow{3}{*}{32743768} \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] \\ [161] \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{2021} & Prospective & \multirow{3}{*}{A} & \multirow{3}{*}{89} & The radiomics model and nomogram had an AUC of 0.928 and 0.944 in the validation cohort, respectively, for the prediction of peritoneal metastasis & LASSO, LoR & \multirow{3}{*}{33948702} \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] \\ [156] \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{2022} & Retrospective, & \multirow{3}{*}{E} & \multirow{3}{*}{109} & CT radiomic model based on & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Planck model based on \\ nominal deposits predicted \\ response to neoadjuvant \\ chemotherapy treatment \\ \end{tabular} } & Elastic Net regression & \multirow{3}{*}{35785153} \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] \\ [151] \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{2022} & Retrospective, & \multirow{3}{*}{A} & \multirow{3}{*}{665} & Radiomics model had an AUC of & \multirow{3}{*}{LoR} & \multirow{3}{*}{36469315} \\  & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] \\ [153] \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{2022} & Retrospective & \multirow{3}{*}{A} & \multirow{3}{*}{217} & The radiomics model had a c-index of 0.858 for the prediction of overall survival and 0.700 for the prediction of disease-free survival in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer & Cox regression & \multirow{3}{*}{35800777} \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Overview of most relevant radiomic studies applied to ovarian cancer.