N Verburg1, F W A Hoefnagels1, F Barkhof2,3, R Boellaard2, S Goldman4, J Guo5, J J Heimans6, O S Hoekstra2, R Jain7, M Kinoshita8, P J W Pouwels9, S J Price10, J C Reijneveld6, A Stadlbauer11, W P Vandertop1, P Wesseling12,13, A H Zwinderman14, P C De Witt Hamer15. 1. From the Neurosurgical Center Amsterdam (N.V., F.W.A.H., W.P.V., P.C.D.W.H.). 2. Departments of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (F.B., R.B., O.S.H.). 3. Institutes of Neurology and Healthcare Engineering (F.B.), University College London, London, UK. 4. Service of Nuclear Medicine and PET/Biomedical Cyclotron Unit (S.G.), l'université libre de Bruxelles-Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium. 5. Shanghai Medical College (J.G.), Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 6. Neurology (J.J.H., J.C.R.). 7. Department of Radiology (R.J.), New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. 8. Department of Neurosurgery (M.K.), Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan. 9. Physics and Medical Technology (P.J.W.P.). 10. Academic Neurosurgery Division (S.J.P.), Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. 11. Department of Neurosurgery (A.S.), University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany. 12. Pathology (P.W.), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 13. Department of Pathology (P.W.), Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 14. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (A.H.Z.), Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 15. From the Neurosurgical Center Amsterdam (N.V., F.W.A.H., W.P.V., P.C.D.W.H.) p.dewitthamer@vumc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brain imaging in diffuse glioma is used for diagnosis, treatment planning, and follow-up. PURPOSE: In this meta-analysis, we address the diagnostic accuracy of imaging to delineate diffuse glioma. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched studies of adults with diffuse gliomas and correlation of imaging with histopathology. STUDY SELECTION: Study inclusion was based on quality criteria. Individual patient data were used, if available. DATA ANALYSIS: A hierarchic summary receiver operating characteristic method was applied. Low- and high-grade gliomas were analyzed in subgroups. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-one studies described 3532 samples in 1309 patients. The mean Standard for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy score (13/25) indicated suboptimal reporting quality. For diffuse gliomas as a whole, the diagnostic accuracy was best with T2-weighted imaging, measured as area under the curve, false-positive rate, true-positive rate, and diagnostic odds ratio of 95.6%, 3.3%, 82%, and 152. For low-grade gliomas, the diagnostic accuracy of T2-weighted imaging as a reference was 89.0%, 0.4%, 44.7%, and 205; and for high-grade gliomas, with T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging as a reference, it was 80.7%, 16.8%, 73.3%, and 14.8. In high-grade gliomas, MR spectroscopy (85.7%, 35.0%, 85.7%, and 12.4) and 11C methionine-PET (85.1%, 38.7%, 93.7%, and 26.6) performed better than the reference imaging. LIMITATIONS: True-negative samples were underrepresented in these data, so false-positive rates are probably less reliable than true-positive rates. Multimodality imaging data were unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of commonly used imaging is better for delineation of low-grade gliomas than high-grade gliomas on the basis of limited evidence. Improvement is indicated from advanced techniques, such as MR spectroscopy and PET.
BACKGROUND: Brain imaging in diffuse glioma is used for diagnosis, treatment planning, and follow-up. PURPOSE: In this meta-analysis, we address the diagnostic accuracy of imaging to delineate diffuse glioma. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched studies of adults with diffuse gliomas and correlation of imaging with histopathology. STUDY SELECTION: Study inclusion was based on quality criteria. Individual patient data were used, if available. DATA ANALYSIS: A hierarchic summary receiver operating characteristic method was applied. Low- and high-grade gliomas were analyzed in subgroups. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-one studies described 3532 samples in 1309 patients. The mean Standard for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy score (13/25) indicated suboptimal reporting quality. For diffuse gliomas as a whole, the diagnostic accuracy was best with T2-weighted imaging, measured as area under the curve, false-positive rate, true-positive rate, and diagnostic odds ratio of 95.6%, 3.3%, 82%, and 152. For low-grade gliomas, the diagnostic accuracy of T2-weighted imaging as a reference was 89.0%, 0.4%, 44.7%, and 205; and for high-grade gliomas, with T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging as a reference, it was 80.7%, 16.8%, 73.3%, and 14.8. In high-grade gliomas, MR spectroscopy (85.7%, 35.0%, 85.7%, and 12.4) and 11C methionine-PET (85.1%, 38.7%, 93.7%, and 26.6) performed better than the reference imaging. LIMITATIONS: True-negative samples were underrepresented in these data, so false-positive rates are probably less reliable than true-positive rates. Multimodality imaging data were unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of commonly used imaging is better for delineation of low-grade gliomas than high-grade gliomas on the basis of limited evidence. Improvement is indicated from advanced techniques, such as MR spectroscopy and PET.
Authors: Maya Harary; Vasileios K Kavouridis; Matthew Torre; Hasan A Zaidi; Ugonma N Chukwueke; David A Reardon; Timothy R Smith; J Bryan Iorgulescu Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Gilbert Hangel; Saurabh Jain; Elisabeth Springer; Eva Hečková; Bernhard Strasser; Michal Považan; Stephan Gruber; Georg Widhalm; Barbara Kiesel; Julia Furtner; Matthias Preusser; Thomas Roetzer; Siegfried Trattnig; Diana M Sima; Dirk Smeets; Wolfgang Bogner Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: L McCarthy; G Verma; G Hangel; A Neal; B A Moffat; J P Stockmann; O C Andronesi; P Balchandani; C G Hadjipanayis Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: M Visser; D M J Müller; R J M van Duijn; M Smits; N Verburg; E J Hendriks; R J A Nabuurs; J C J Bot; R S Eijgelaar; M Witte; M B van Herk; F Barkhof; P C de Witt Hamer; J C de Munck Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Anna Falk Delgado; Danielle Van Westen; Markus Nilsson; Linda Knutsson; Pia C Sundgren; Elna-Marie Larsson; Alberto Falk Delgado Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2019-08-23
Authors: Roelant S Eijgelaar; Anna M E Bruynzeel; Frank J Lagerwaard; Domenique M J Müller; Freek R Teunissen; Frederik Barkhof; Marcel van Herk; Philip C De Witt Hamer; Marnix G Witte Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Giorgio Treglia; Barbara Muoio; Gianluca Trevisi; Maria Vittoria Mattoli; Domenico Albano; Francesco Bertagna; Luca Giovanella Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 5.923