Chong Hyun Suh1, Ho Sung Kim1, Seung Chai Jung1, Choong Gon Choi1, Sang Joon Kim1. 1. 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.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic performance of MRI and PET for differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis in patients with brain metastasis treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were searched up to November 11, 2017, to find relevant studies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity from entire included studies were obtained using hierarchic logistic regression modeling. Metaregression was performed. RESULTS: Twenty studies including 728 patients with 872 brain metastases were selected. MRI showed a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI, 72-91%) and specificity of 88% (95% CI, 71-96%). PET showed a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI, 78-88%) and specificity of 86% (95% CI, 81-90%). There were no statistically significant differences in the diagnostic performance of MRI and PET using indirect (p = 0.80) or direct (p = 0.48) comparisons. The diagnostic performance of advanced MRI was significantly higher than that of conventional MRI (p = 0.01). Advanced MRI (sensitivity, 86% [95% CI, 74-93%]; specificity, 95% [95% CI, 82-98%]) showed a significantly higher diagnostic performance than did PET (p < 0.01). All the included studies used perfusion MRI as an advanced MRI technique. CONCLUSION: MRI and PET showed high diagnostic performance for the detection of tumor recurrence after stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with brain metastasis. There was no significant difference in the diagnostic performance between MRI and PET. Because of heterogeneity and paucity in studies, caution may be needed in applying the results.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic performance of MRI and PET for differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis in patients with brain metastasis treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were searched up to November 11, 2017, to find relevant studies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity from entire included studies were obtained using hierarchic logistic regression modeling. Metaregression was performed. RESULTS: Twenty studies including 728 patients with 872 brain metastases were selected. MRI showed a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI, 72-91%) and specificity of 88% (95% CI, 71-96%). PET showed a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI, 78-88%) and specificity of 86% (95% CI, 81-90%). There were no statistically significant differences in the diagnostic performance of MRI and PET using indirect (p = 0.80) or direct (p = 0.48) comparisons. The diagnostic performance of advanced MRI was significantly higher than that of conventional MRI (p = 0.01). Advanced MRI (sensitivity, 86% [95% CI, 74-93%]; specificity, 95% [95% CI, 82-98%]) showed a significantly higher diagnostic performance than did PET (p < 0.01). All the included studies used perfusion MRI as an advanced MRI technique. CONCLUSION: MRI and PET showed high diagnostic performance for the detection of tumor recurrence after stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with brain metastasis. There was no significant difference in the diagnostic performance between MRI and PET. Because of heterogeneity and paucity in studies, caution may be needed in applying the results.
Authors: Timothy J Kaufmann; Marion Smits; Jerrold Boxerman; Raymond Huang; Daniel P Barboriak; Michael Weller; Caroline Chung; Christina Tsien; Paul D Brown; Lalitha Shankar; Evanthia Galanis; Elizabeth Gerstner; Martin J van den Bent; Terry C Burns; Ian F Parney; Gavin Dunn; Priscilla K Brastianos; Nancy U Lin; Patrick Y Wen; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 12.300
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: Xuguang Chen; Vishwa S Parekh; Luke Peng; Michael D Chan; Kristin J Redmond; Michael Soike; Emory McTyre; Doris Lin; Michael A Jacobs; Lawrence R Kleinberg Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2021-10-25
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
Authors: Jiayi Huang; Mikhail Milchenko; Yuan J Rao; Pamela LaMontagne; Christopher Abraham; Clifford G Robinson; Yi Huang; Joshua S Shimony; Keith M Rich; Tammie Benzinger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 3.240