Background: Noninvasive and accurate modality to predict isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant glioma may have great potential in routine clinical practice. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic performance of 2-hydroxyglutarate (2HG) magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) for prediction of IDH mutant glioma and provide an optimal cutoff value for 2HG. Methods: A systematic literature search of Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed to identify original articles investigating the diagnostic performance of 2HG MRS up to March 20, 2018. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to explain heterogeneity effects. An optimal cutoff value for 2HG was calculated from studies providing individual patient data. Results: Fourteen original articles with 460 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnostic performance of 2HG MRS for prediction of IDH mutant glioma were 95% (95% CI, 85-98%) and 91% (95% CI, 83-96%), respectively. The Higgins I2 statistic demonstrated that heterogeneity was present in the sensitivity (I2 = 50.69%), but not in the specificity (I2 = 30.37%). In the meta-regression, echo time (TE) was associated with study heterogeneity. Among the studies using point-resolved spectroscopy (PRESS), a long TE (97 ms) resulted in higher sensitivity (92%) and specificity (97%) than a short TE (30-35 ms; sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 88%; P < 0.01). The optimal 2HG cutoff value of 2HG using individual patient data was 1.76 mM. Conclusion: 2HG MRS demonstrated excellent specificity for prediction of IDH mutant glioma, with TE being associated with heterogeneity in the sensitivity. Key Points: 1. HG MRS has excellent diagnostic performance in the prediction of IDH mutant glioma. 2. The pooled sensitivity was 95% and the pooled specificity was 91%. 3. Echo time was associated with study heterogeneity in the meta-regression.
Background: Noninvasive and accurate modality to predict isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant glioma may have great potential in routine clinical practice. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic performance of 2-hydroxyglutarate (2HG) magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) for prediction of IDH mutant glioma and provide an optimal cutoff value for 2HG. Methods: A systematic literature search of Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed to identify original articles investigating the diagnostic performance of 2HG MRS up to March 20, 2018. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to explain heterogeneity effects. An optimal cutoff value for 2HG was calculated from studies providing individual patient data. Results: Fourteen original articles with 460 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnostic performance of 2HG MRS for prediction of IDH mutant glioma were 95% (95% CI, 85-98%) and 91% (95% CI, 83-96%), respectively. The Higgins I2 statistic demonstrated that heterogeneity was present in the sensitivity (I2 = 50.69%), but not in the specificity (I2 = 30.37%). In the meta-regression, echo time (TE) was associated with study heterogeneity. Among the studies using point-resolved spectroscopy (PRESS), a long TE (97 ms) resulted in higher sensitivity (92%) and specificity (97%) than a short TE (30-35 ms; sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 88%; P < 0.01). The optimal 2HG cutoff value of 2HG using individual patient data was 1.76 mM. Conclusion: 2HG MRS demonstrated excellent specificity for prediction of IDH mutant glioma, with TE being associated with heterogeneity in the sensitivity. Key Points: 1. HG MRS has excellent diagnostic performance in the prediction of IDH mutant glioma. 2. The pooled sensitivity was 95% and the pooled specificity was 91%. 3. Echo time was associated with study heterogeneity in the meta-regression.
Authors: K Yamashita; A Hiwatashi; O Togao; K Kikuchi; R Hatae; K Yoshimoto; M Mizoguchi; S O Suzuki; T Yoshiura; H Honda Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Changho Choi; Jack M Raisanen; Sandeep K Ganji; Song Zhang; Sarah S McNeil; Zhongxu An; Akshay Madan; Kimmo J Hatanpaa; Vamsidhara Vemireddy; Christie A Sheppard; Dwight Oliver; Keith M Hulsey; Vivek Tiwari; Tomoyuki Mashimo; James Battiste; Samuel Barnett; Christopher J Madden; Toral R Patel; Edward Pan; Craig R Malloy; Bruce E Mickey; Robert M Bachoo; Elizabeth A Maher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David N Louis; Arie Perry; Guido Reifenberger; Andreas von Deimling; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Webster K Cavenee; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Paul Kleihues; David W Ellison Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Adam Berrington; Natalie L Voets; Sarah J Larkin; Nick de Pennington; James Mccullagh; Richard Stacey; Christopher J Schofield; Peter Jezzard; Stuart Clare; Tom Cadoux-Hudson; Puneet Plaha; Olaf Ansorge; Uzay E Emir Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Chong Hyun Suh; Ho Sung Kim; Ji Eun Park; Seung Chai Jung; Choong Gon Choi; Dong-Cheol Woo; Ho Beom Lee; Sang Joon Kim Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2020-07-31
Authors: Vittorio Stumpo; Martina Sebök; Christiaan Hendrik Bas van Niftrik; Katharina Seystahl; Nicolin Hainc; Zsolt Kulcsar; Michael Weller; Luca Regli; Jorn Fierstra Journal: MAGMA Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 2.310