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
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the imaging features of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant glioma and to assess the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prediction of IDH mutation in patients with glioma. METHODS: A systematic search of Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 10 October 2017 was conducted to find relevant studies. The search terms combined synonyms for 'glioma', 'IDH mutation' and 'MRI'. Studies evaluating the imaging features of IDH mutant glioma and the diagnostic performance of MRI for prediction of IDH mutation in patients with glioma were selected. The pooled summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. The results of multiple subgroup analyses are reported. RESULTS: Twenty-eight original articles in a total of 2,146 patients with glioma were included. IDH mutant glioma showed frontal lobe predominance, less contrast enhancement, well-defined border, high apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and low relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) value. For the meta-analysis that included 18 original articles, the summary sensitivity was 86% (95% CI, 79%-91%) and the summary specificity was 87% (95% CI, 78-92%). In a subgroup analysis, the summary sensitivity of 2-hydroxyglutarate magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) [96% (95% CI, 91-100%)] was higher than the summary sensitivities of other imaging modalities. CONCLUSIONS: IDH mutant glioma consistently demonstrated less aggressive imaging features than IDH wild-type glioma. Despite the variety of different MRI techniques used, MRI showed the potential to non-invasively predict IDH mutation in patients with glioma. 2-Hydroxyglutarate MRS shows higher pooled sensitivity than other imaging modalities. KEY POINTS: • IDH mutant glioma showed frontal lobe predominance, less contrast enhancement, well-defined border, high ADC value, and low rCBV value. • The diagnostic performance of MRI for prediction of IDH mutation in patients with glioma is within a clinically acceptable range, the summary sensitivity was 86% (95% CI, 79-91%) and the summary specificity was 87% (95% CI, 78-92%). • In a subgroup analysis, the summary sensitivity of 2-hydroxyglutarate MRS [96% (95% CI, 91-100%)] was higher than the summary sensitivities of other imaging modalities.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the imaging features of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant glioma and to assess the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prediction of IDH mutation in patients with glioma. METHODS: A systematic search of Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 10 October 2017 was conducted to find relevant studies. The search terms combined synonyms for 'glioma', 'IDH mutation' and 'MRI'. Studies evaluating the imaging features of IDH mutant glioma and the diagnostic performance of MRI for prediction of IDH mutation in patients with glioma were selected. The pooled summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. The results of multiple subgroup analyses are reported. RESULTS: Twenty-eight original articles in a total of 2,146 patients with glioma were included. IDH mutant glioma showed frontal lobe predominance, less contrast enhancement, well-defined border, high apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and low relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) value. For the meta-analysis that included 18 original articles, the summary sensitivity was 86% (95% CI, 79%-91%) and the summary specificity was 87% (95% CI, 78-92%). In a subgroup analysis, the summary sensitivity of 2-hydroxyglutarate magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) [96% (95% CI, 91-100%)] was higher than the summary sensitivities of other imaging modalities. CONCLUSIONS:IDH mutant glioma consistently demonstrated less aggressive imaging features than IDH wild-type glioma. Despite the variety of different MRI techniques used, MRI showed the potential to non-invasively predict IDH mutation in patients with glioma. 2-Hydroxyglutarate MRS shows higher pooled sensitivity than other imaging modalities. KEY POINTS: • IDH mutant glioma showed frontal lobe predominance, less contrast enhancement, well-defined border, high ADC value, and low rCBV value. • The diagnostic performance of MRI for prediction of IDH mutation in patients with glioma is within a clinically acceptable range, the summary sensitivity was 86% (95% CI, 79-91%) and the summary specificity was 87% (95% CI, 78-92%). • In a subgroup analysis, the summary sensitivity of 2-hydroxyglutarate MRS [96% (95% CI, 91-100%)] was higher than the summary sensitivities of other imaging modalities.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diffusion; Glioma; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic resonance spectroscopy; Perfusion
Authors: Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Anne W S Rutjes; Rob J P M Scholten; Patrick M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Sohil H Patel; Laila M Poisson; Daniel J Brat; Yueren Zhou; Lee Cooper; Matija Snuderl; Cheddhi Thomas; Ana M Franceschi; Brent Griffith; Adam E Flanders; John G Golfinos; Andrew S Chi; Rajan Jain Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Andreas Stadlbauer; Max Zimmermann; Melitta Kitzwögerer; Stefan Oberndorfer; Karl Rössler; Arnd Dörfler; Michael Buchfelder; Gertraud Heinz Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J A Carrillo; A Lai; P L Nghiemphu; H J Kim; H S Phillips; S Kharbanda; P Moftakhar; S Lalaezari; W Yong; B M Ellingson; T F Cloughesy; W B Pope Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Biller; S Badde; A Nagel; J-O Neumann; W Wick; A Hertenstein; M Bendszus; F Sahm; N Benkhedah; J Kleesiek Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-10-22 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: E Aliotta; H Nourzadeh; P P Batchala; D Schiff; M B Lopes; J T Druzgal; S Mukherjee; S H Patel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Maike Kern; Timo A Auer; Uli Fehrenbach; Yasemin Tanyildizi; Thomas Picht; Martin Misch; Edzard Wiener Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2020-01-19
Authors: Sohil H Patel; Prem P Batchala; Thomas J Eluvathingal Muttikkal; Sergio S Ferrante; James T Patrie; Camilo E Fadul; David Schiff; M Beatriz Lopes; Rajan Jain Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Jun Zhang; Hong Peng; Yu-Lin Wang; Hua-Feng Xiao; Yuan-Yuan Cui; Xiang-Bing Bian; De-Kang Zhang; Lin Ma Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 6.244