BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Proton MR spectroscopy ((1)H-MR spectroscopy) is a potentially useful adjunct to anatomic MR imaging in the characterization of brain tumors. We performed an updated systematic review of the evidence. METHODS: We employed a standardized search strategy to find studies published during 2002-2004. We reviewed studies measuring diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic, therapeutic, or health impact of (1)H-MR spectroscopy. We abstracted information on study design, (1)H-MR spectroscopy technique, and methodologic quality. We categorized studies into 5 subgroups: (1) metastasis versus high-grade tumor; (2) high-versus low-grade tumor; (3) recurrent tumor versus radiation necrosis; (4) tumor extent; and (5) tumor versus non-neoplastic lesion. RESULTS: We identified 26 studies evaluating diagnostic performance, diagnostic impact, or therapeutic impact. No articles evaluated patient health or cost-effectiveness. Methodologic quality was mixed; most used histopathology as the reference standard but did not specify blinded interpretation of histopathology. One large study demonstrated a statistically significant increase in diagnostic accuracy for indeterminate brain lesions from 55%, based on MR imaging, to 71% after analysis of (1)H-MR spectroscopy. Several studies have found that (1)H-MR spectroscopy is highly accurate for distinguishing high- and low-grade gliomas, though the incremental benefit of (1)H-MR spectroscopy in this setting is less clear. Interpretation for the other clinical subgroups is limited by the small number of studies. CONCLUSION: The current evidence on the accuracy of (1)H-MR spectroscopy in the characterization of brain tumors is promising. However, additional high-quality studies are needed to convince policy makers. We present guidelines to help focus future research in this area.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Proton MR spectroscopy ((1)H-MR spectroscopy) is a potentially useful adjunct to anatomic MR imaging in the characterization of brain tumors. We performed an updated systematic review of the evidence. METHODS: We employed a standardized search strategy to find studies published during 2002-2004. We reviewed studies measuring diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic, therapeutic, or health impact of (1)H-MR spectroscopy. We abstracted information on study design, (1)H-MR spectroscopy technique, and methodologic quality. We categorized studies into 5 subgroups: (1) metastasis versus high-grade tumor; (2) high-versus low-grade tumor; (3) recurrent tumor versus radiation necrosis; (4) tumor extent; and (5) tumor versus non-neoplastic lesion. RESULTS: We identified 26 studies evaluating diagnostic performance, diagnostic impact, or therapeutic impact. No articles evaluated patient health or cost-effectiveness. Methodologic quality was mixed; most used histopathology as the reference standard but did not specify blinded interpretation of histopathology. One large study demonstrated a statistically significant increase in diagnostic accuracy for indeterminate brain lesions from 55%, based on MR imaging, to 71% after analysis of (1)H-MR spectroscopy. Several studies have found that (1)H-MR spectroscopy is highly accurate for distinguishing high- and low-grade gliomas, though the incremental benefit of (1)H-MR spectroscopy in this setting is less clear. Interpretation for the other clinical subgroups is limited by the small number of studies. CONCLUSION: The current evidence on the accuracy of (1)H-MR spectroscopy in the characterization of brain tumors is promising. However, additional high-quality studies are needed to convince policy makers. We present guidelines to help focus future research in this area.
Authors: C Majós; J Alonso; C Aguilera; M Serrallonga; S Coll; J J Acebes; C Arús; J Gili Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2003-02-19 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: A Shukla-Dave; R K Gupta; R Roy; N Husain; L Paul; S K Venkatesh; M R Rashid; D K Chhabra; M Husain Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: S D Rand; R Prost; V Haughton; L Mark; J Strainer; J Johansen; T A Kim; V K Chetty; W Mueller; G Meyer; H Krouwer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andrea Pirzkall; Xiaojuan Li; Joonmi Oh; Susan Chang; Mitchel S Berger; David A Larson; Lynn J Verhey; William P Dillon; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A Rosemary Tate; Carles Majós; Angel Moreno; Franklyn A Howe; John R Griffiths; Carles Arús Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Krissy A R Doyle-Thomas; Dallas Card; Latha V Soorya; A Ting Wang; Jin Fan; Evdokia Anagnostou Journal: Res Autism Spectr Disord Date: 2014-01
Authors: Haroon Ahmad; David Martin; Sohil H Patel; Joseph Donahue; Beatriz Lopes; Benjamin Purow; David Schiff; Camilo E Fadul Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 4.130