A F Delgado5, F De Luca2, P Hanagandi3, D van Westen4, A F Delgado5. 1. From the Departments of Clinical Neuroscience (Anna F.D.) anna.falk-delgado@sll.se. 2. Faculty of Medicine and Surgery (F.D.L.), School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University "G. d'Annunzio," Chieti, Italy. 3. Neuroradiology (P.H.), Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Faculty of Medicine (D.v.W.), Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Sweden. 5. Department of Surgical Sciences (Alberto F.D.), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The value of arterial spin-labeling in a pediatric population has not been assessed in a meta-analysis. PURPOSE: Our aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of arterial spin-labeling-derived cerebral blood flow to discriminate low- and high-grade tumors. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library were used. STUDY SELECTION: Pediatric patients with arterial spin-labeling MR imaging with verified neuropathologic diagnoses were included. DATA ANALYSIS: Relative CBF and absolute CBF and tumor grade were extracted, including sequence-specific information. Mean differences in CBF between low- and high-grade tumors were calculated. Study quality was assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were aggregated using the bivariate summary receiver operating characteristic curve model. Heterogeneity was explored with meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The study protocol was published at PROSPERO (CRD42017075055). Eight studies encompassing 286 pediatric patients were included. The mean differences in absolute CBF were 29.62 mL/min/100 g (95% CI, 10.43-48.82 mL/min/100 g), I2 = 74, P = .002, and 1.34 mL/min/100 g (95% CI, 0.95-1.74 mL/min/100 g), P < .001, I2 = 38 for relative CBF. Pooled sensitivity for relative CBF ranged from 0.75 to 0.90, and specificity, from 0.77 to 0.92 with an area under curve = 0.92. Meta-regression showed no moderating effect of sequence parameters TE, TR, acquisition time, or ROI method. LIMITATIONS: Included tumor types, analysis method, and original data varied among included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Arterial spin-labeling-derived CBF measures showed high diagnostic accuracy for discriminating low- and high-grade tumors in pediatric patients with brain tumors. The relative CBF showed less variation among studies than the absolute CBF.
BACKGROUND: The value of arterial spin-labeling in a pediatric population has not been assessed in a meta-analysis. PURPOSE: Our aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of arterial spin-labeling-derived cerebral blood flow to discriminate low- and high-grade tumors. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library were used. STUDY SELECTION: Pediatric patients with arterial spin-labeling MR imaging with verified neuropathologic diagnoses were included. DATA ANALYSIS: Relative CBF and absolute CBF and tumor grade were extracted, including sequence-specific information. Mean differences in CBF between low- and high-grade tumors were calculated. Study quality was assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were aggregated using the bivariate summary receiver operating characteristic curve model. Heterogeneity was explored with meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The study protocol was published at PROSPERO (CRD42017075055). Eight studies encompassing 286 pediatric patients were included. The mean differences in absolute CBF were 29.62 mL/min/100 g (95% CI, 10.43-48.82 mL/min/100 g), I2 = 74, P = .002, and 1.34 mL/min/100 g (95% CI, 0.95-1.74 mL/min/100 g), P < .001, I2 = 38 for relative CBF. Pooled sensitivity for relative CBF ranged from 0.75 to 0.90, and specificity, from 0.77 to 0.92 with an area under curve = 0.92. Meta-regression showed no moderating effect of sequence parameters TE, TR, acquisition time, or ROI method. LIMITATIONS: Included tumor types, analysis method, and original data varied among included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Arterial spin-labeling-derived CBF measures showed high diagnostic accuracy for discriminating low- and high-grade tumors in pediatric patients with brain tumors. The relative CBF showed less variation among studies than the absolute CBF.
Authors: B Testud; G Brun; A Varoquaux; J F Hak; R Appay; A Le Troter; N Girard; J P Stellmann Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: F Kuo; N N Ng; S Nagpal; E L Pollom; S Soltys; M Hayden-Gephart; G Li; D E Born; M Iv Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Otto M Henriksen; María Del Mar Álvarez-Torres; Patricia Figueiredo; Gilbert Hangel; Vera C Keil; Ruben E Nechifor; Frank Riemer; Kathleen M Schmainda; Esther A H Warnert; Evita C Wiegers; Thomas C Booth Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Patrick W Hales; Felice d'Arco; Jessica Cooper; Josef Pfeuffer; Darren Hargrave; Kshitij Mankad; Chris Clark Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Anita Adriaantje Harteveld; Annemieke Simone Littooij; Max Maria van Noesel; Marijn van Stralen; Clemens Bos Journal: MAGMA Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 2.310