Chong Hyun Suh1, Ho Sung Kim2, Seung Chai Jung1, Choong Gon Choi1, Sang Joon Kim1. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 138-736, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 138-736, Republic of Korea. radhskim@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of multiparametric MRI for determination of early treatment response following concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. METHODS: A computerized search of Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 1 October 2017 was performed to find studies on the diagnostic performance of multiparametric MRI for differentiating true progression from pseudoprogression. The beginning search date was not specified. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained using hierarchical logistic regression modeling. We performed meta-regression and sensitivity analyses to explain the effects of the study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Nine studies including 456 patients were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 84 % (95 % CI 74-91) and 95 % (95 % CI 83-99), respectively. Area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.95 (95 % CI 0.92-0.96). Meta-regression showed true progression in the study population, the mean age and the reference standard were significant factors affecting heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Multiparametric MRI may be used as a potential surrogate endpoint for assessment of early treatment response, especially in the differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression. However, based on the current evidence, monoparametric and multiparametric MRI perform equally in the clinical context. Further evaluation will be needed. KEY POINTS: • Multiparametric MRI shows high diagnostic performance for early treatment response in glioblastoma. • Multiparametric MRI could differentiate true progression from pseudoprogression in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. • The normalized rCBV derived from DSC was the most commonly used parameter.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of multiparametric MRI for determination of early treatment response following concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. METHODS: A computerized search of Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 1 October 2017 was performed to find studies on the diagnostic performance of multiparametric MRI for differentiating true progression from pseudoprogression. The beginning search date was not specified. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained using hierarchical logistic regression modeling. We performed meta-regression and sensitivity analyses to explain the effects of the study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Nine studies including 456 patients were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 84 % (95 % CI 74-91) and 95 % (95 % CI 83-99), respectively. Area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.95 (95 % CI 0.92-0.96). Meta-regression showed true progression in the study population, the mean age and the reference standard were significant factors affecting heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Multiparametric MRI may be used as a potential surrogate endpoint for assessment of early treatment response, especially in the differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression. However, based on the current evidence, monoparametric and multiparametric MRI perform equally in the clinical context. Further evaluation will be needed. KEY POINTS: • Multiparametric MRI shows high diagnostic performance for early treatment response in glioblastoma. • Multiparametric MRI could differentiate true progression from pseudoprogression in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. • The normalized rCBV derived from DSC was the most commonly used parameter.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnosis; Glioblastoma; Magnetic resonance imaging; Perfusion; Standardization
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: Thomas A Trikalinos; Cynthia M Balion; Craig I Coleman; Lauren Griffith; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Ben Vandermeer; Rongwei Fu Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Otto M Henriksen; Adam E Hansen; Aida Muhic; Lisbeth Marner; Karine Madsen; Søren Møller; Benedikte Hasselbalch; Michael J Lundemann; David Scheie; Jane Skjøth-Rasmussen; Hans S Poulsen; Vibeke A Larsen; Henrik B W Larsson; Ian Law Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ramon F Barajas; Prakash Ambady; Jeanne Link; Kenneth A Krohn; Ahmed Raslan; Nadine Mallak; Randy Woltjer; Leslie Muldoon; Edward A Neuwelt Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2022-03-09
Authors: Bart R J van Dijken; Peter Jan van Laar; Marion Smits; Jan Willem Dankbaar; Roelien H Enting; Anouk van der Hoorn Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.813
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