Praneil Patel1, Hediyeh Baradaran2, Diana Delgado2, Gulce Askin2, Paul Christos2, Apostolos John Tsiouris2, Ajay Gupta2. 1. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York (P.P., H.B., A.J.T., A.G.); Samuel J. Wood Library & C. V. Starr Biomedical Information Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York (D.D.); Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York (G.A., P.C.) pmp9007@med.cornell.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York (P.P., H.B., A.J.T., A.G.); Samuel J. Wood Library & C. V. Starr Biomedical Information Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York (D.D.); Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York (G.A., P.C.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distinction between tumor and treatment related changes is crucial for clinical management of patients with high-grade gliomas. Our purpose was to evaluate whether dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced (DSC) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI) metrics can effectively differentiate between recurrent tumor and posttreatment changes within the enhancing signal abnormality on conventional MRI. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed for studies evaluating PWI-based differentiation of recurrent tumor and posttreatment changes in patients with high-grade gliomas (World Health Organization grades III and IV). Only studies published in the "temozolomide era" beginning in 2005 were included. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were obtained by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Of 1581 abstracts screened, 28 articles were included. The pooled sensitivities and specificities of each study's best performing parameter were 90% and 88% (95% CI: 0.85-0.94; 0.83-0.92) and 89% and 85% (95% CI: 0.78-0.96; 0.77-0.91) for DSC and DCE, respectively. The pooled sensitivities and specificities for detecting tumor recurrence using the 2 most commonly evaluated parameters, mean relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) (threshold range, 0.9-2.15) and maximum rCBV (threshold range, 1.49-3.1), were 88% and 88% (95% CI: 0.81-0.94; 0.78-0.95) and 93% and 76% (95% CI: 0.86-0.98; 0.66-0.85), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PWI-derived thresholds separating viable tumor from treatment changes demonstrate relatively good accuracy in individual studies. However, because of significant variability in optimal reported thresholds and other limitations in the existing body of literature, further investigation and standardization is needed before implementing any particular quantitative PWI strategy across institutions.
BACKGROUND: Distinction between tumor and treatment related changes is crucial for clinical management of patients with high-grade gliomas. Our purpose was to evaluate whether dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced (DSC) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI) metrics can effectively differentiate between recurrent tumor and posttreatment changes within the enhancing signal abnormality on conventional MRI. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed for studies evaluating PWI-based differentiation of recurrent tumor and posttreatment changes in patients with high-grade gliomas (World Health Organization grades III and IV). Only studies published in the "temozolomide era" beginning in 2005 were included. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were obtained by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Of 1581 abstracts screened, 28 articles were included. The pooled sensitivities and specificities of each study's best performing parameter were 90% and 88% (95% CI: 0.85-0.94; 0.83-0.92) and 89% and 85% (95% CI: 0.78-0.96; 0.77-0.91) for DSC and DCE, respectively. The pooled sensitivities and specificities for detecting tumor recurrence using the 2 most commonly evaluated parameters, mean relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) (threshold range, 0.9-2.15) and maximum rCBV (threshold range, 1.49-3.1), were 88% and 88% (95% CI: 0.81-0.94; 0.78-0.95) and 93% and 76% (95% CI: 0.86-0.98; 0.66-0.85), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PWI-derived thresholds separating viable tumor from treatment changes demonstrate relatively good accuracy in individual studies. However, because of significant variability in optimal reported thresholds and other limitations in the existing body of literature, further investigation and standardization is needed before implementing any particular quantitative PWI strategy across institutions.
Authors: L S Hu; L C Baxter; K A Smith; B G Feuerstein; J P Karis; J M Eschbacher; S W Coons; P Nakaji; R F Yeh; J Debbins; J E Heiserman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: L C Hygino da Cruz; I Rodriguez; R C Domingues; E L Gasparetto; A G Sorensen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-03-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Cha; S T Kim; H-J Kim; B-J Kim; Y K Kim; J Y Lee; P Jeon; K H Kim; D-S Kong; D-H Nam Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Csanad G Varallyay; Eric Nesbit; Andrea Horvath; Peter Varallyay; Rongwei Fu; Seymur Gahramanov; Leslie L Muldoon; Xin Li; William D Rooney; Edward A Neuwelt Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Yoshie Umemura; Diane Wang; Kyung K Peck; Jessica Flynn; Zhigang Zhang; Robin Fatovic; Erik S Anderson; Kathryn Beal; Alexander N Shoushtari; Thomas Kaley; Robert J Young Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: J M Hoxworth; J M Eschbacher; A C Gonzales; K W Singleton; G D Leon; K A Smith; A M Stokes; Y Zhou; G L Mazza; A B Porter; M M Mrugala; R S Zimmerman; B R Bendok; D P Patra; C Krishna; J L Boxerman; L C Baxter; K R Swanson; C C Quarles; K M Schmainda; L S Hu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A D Schweitzer; G C Chiang; J Ivanidze; H Baradaran; R J Young; R D Zimmerman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Antoine Verger; Christian P Filss; Philipp Lohmann; Gabriele Stoffels; Michael Sabel; Hans J Wittsack; Elena Rota Kops; Norbert Galldiks; Gereon R Fink; Nadim J Shah; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 9.236