G W J Harston1, N Rane2, G Shaya3, S Thandeswaran3, M Cellerini4, F Sheerin4, J Kennedy3. 1. From the Radcliffe Department of Medicine (G.W.J.H., G.S., S.T., J.K.), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom george.harston@rdm.ox.ac.uk. 2. Department of Neuroradiology (N.R., M.C., F.S.), Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom Neurointervention Service (N.R.), Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne Health, Victoria, Australia. 3. From the Radcliffe Department of Medicine (G.W.J.H., G.S., S.T., J.K.), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Neuroradiology (N.R., M.C., F.S.), Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Imaging biomarkers are increasingly used to provide a better understanding of the pathophysiology of acute ischemic stroke. However, this approach of routinely using imaging biomarkers to inform treatment decisions has yet to be translated into successful randomized trials. The aim of this study was to systematically review the use of imaging biomarkers in randomized controlled trials in patients with acute ischemic stroke, exploring the purposes for which the imaging biomarkers were used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of imaging biomarkers used in randomized controlled trials of acute ischemic stroke, in which a therapeutic intervention was trialed within 48 hours of symptom onset. Data bases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, strokecenter.org, and the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (1995-2014). RESULTS: Eighty-four studies met the criteria, of which 49 used imaging to select patients; 31, for subgroup analysis; and 49, as an outcome measure. Imaging biomarkers were broadly used for 8 purposes. There was marked heterogeneity in the definitions and uses of imaging biomarkers and significant publication bias among post hoc analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging biomarkers offer the opportunity to refine the trial cohort by minimizing participant variation, to decrease sample size, and to personalize treatment approaches for those who stand to benefit most. However, within imaging modalities, there has been little consistency between stroke trials. Greater effort to prospectively use consistent imaging biomarkers should help improve the development of novel treatment strategies in acute stroke and improve comparison between studies.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Imaging biomarkers are increasingly used to provide a better understanding of the pathophysiology of acute ischemic stroke. However, this approach of routinely using imaging biomarkers to inform treatment decisions has yet to be translated into successful randomized trials. The aim of this study was to systematically review the use of imaging biomarkers in randomized controlled trials in patients with acute ischemic stroke, exploring the purposes for which the imaging biomarkers were used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of imaging biomarkers used in randomized controlled trials of acute ischemic stroke, in which a therapeutic intervention was trialed within 48 hours of symptom onset. Data bases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, strokecenter.org, and the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (1995-2014). RESULTS: Eighty-four studies met the criteria, of which 49 used imaging to select patients; 31, for subgroup analysis; and 49, as an outcome measure. Imaging biomarkers were broadly used for 8 purposes. There was marked heterogeneity in the definitions and uses of imaging biomarkers and significant publication bias among post hoc analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging biomarkers offer the opportunity to refine the trial cohort by minimizing participant variation, to decrease sample size, and to personalize treatment approaches for those who stand to benefit most. However, within imaging modalities, there has been little consistency between stroke trials. Greater effort to prospectively use consistent imaging biomarkers should help improve the development of novel treatment strategies in acute stroke and improve comparison between studies.
Authors: Ioanna Tzoulaki; Konstantinos C Siontis; Evangelos Evangelou; John P A Ioannidis Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Mark Parsons; Neil Spratt; Andrew Bivard; Bruce Campbell; Kong Chung; Ferdinand Miteff; Bill O'Brien; Christopher Bladin; Patrick McElduff; Chris Allen; Grant Bateman; Geoffrey Donnan; Stephen Davis; Christopher Levi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yoshinari Nagakane; Soren Christensen; Caspar Brekenfeld; Henry Ma; Leonid Churilov; Mark W Parsons; Christopher R Levi; Kenneth S Butcher; Andre Peeters; P Alan Barber; Christopher F Bladin; Deidre A De Silva; John Fink; Thomas E Kimber; David W Schultz; Keith W Muir; Brian M Tress; Patricia M Desmond; Stephen M Davis; Geoffrey A Donnan Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-12-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Chelsea S Kidwell; Reza Jahan; Jeffrey Gornbein; Jeffry R Alger; Val Nenov; Zahra Ajani; Lei Feng; Brett C Meyer; Scott Olson; Lee H Schwamm; Albert J Yoo; Randolph S Marshall; Philip M Meyers; Dileep R Yavagal; Max Wintermark; Judy Guzy; Sidney Starkman; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph P Broderick; Yuko Y Palesch; Andrew M Demchuk; Sharon D Yeatts; Pooja Khatri; Michael D Hill; Edward C Jauch; Tudor G Jovin; Bernard Yan; Frank L Silver; Rüdiger von Kummer; Carlos A Molina; Bart M Demaerschalk; Ronald Budzik; Wayne M Clark; Osama O Zaidat; Tim W Malisch; Mayank Goyal; Wouter J Schonewille; Mikael Mazighi; Stefan T Engelter; Craig Anderson; Judith Spilker; Janice Carrozzella; Karla J Ryckborst; L Scott Janis; Renée H Martin; Lydia D Foster; Thomas A Tomsick Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anders B Neumann; Kristjana Y Jonsdottir; Kim Mouridsen; Niels Hjort; Carsten Gyldensted; Alberto Bizzi; Jens Fiehler; Roberto Gasparotti; Jonathan H Gillard; Marc Hermier; Thomas Kucinski; Elna-Marie Larsson; Leif Sørensen; Leif Ostergaard Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jason Siegel; Michael A Pizzi; J Brent Peel; David Alejos; Nnenne Mbabuike; Benjamin L Brown; David Hodge; W David Freeman Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Lee Sze Foo; George Harston; Amit Mehndiratta; Wun-She Yap; Yan Chai Hum; Khin Wee Lai; Shahizon Azura Mohamed Mukari; Faizah Mohd Zaki; Yee Kai Tee Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-08
Authors: George W J Harston; Thomas W Okell; Fintan Sheerin; Ursula Schulz; Phil Mathieson; Ian Reckless; Kunal Shah; Gary A Ford; Michael A Chappell; Peter Jezzard; James Kennedy Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: George W J Harston; David Minks; Fintan Sheerin; Stephen J Payne; Michael Chappell; Peter Jezzard; Mark Jenkinson; James Kennedy Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: Thomas W Okell; George W J Harston; Michael A Chappell; Fintan Sheerin; James Kennedy; Peter Jezzard Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 4.379