Gerard Thompson1, Theresa A Lawrie2, Ashleigh Kernohan3, Michael D Jenkinson4. 1. University of Edinburgh, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Chancellor's Building FU201a, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, EH16 4SB. 2. The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, 3rd Floor Northgate House, Upper Borough Walls, Bath, UK, BA1 1RG. 3. Newcastle University, Institute of Health & Society, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE2 4AA. 4. Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool & Department of Neurosurgery, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines suggest that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain should be performed at certain time points or intervals distant from diagnosis (interval or surveillance imaging) of cerebral glioma, to monitor or follow up the disease; it is not known, however, whether these imaging strategies lead to better outcomes among patients than triggered imaging in response to new or worsening symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of different imaging strategies (in particular, pre-specified interval or surveillance imaging, and symptomatic or triggered imaging) on health and economic outcomes for adults with glioma (grades 2 to 4) in the brain. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers (CGNOC) Group Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase up to 18 June 2019 and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to December 2014 (database closure). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and controlled before-after studies with concurrent comparison groups comparing the effect of different imaging strategies on survival and other health outcomes in adults with cerebral glioma; and full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses and cost-benefit analyses) conducted alongside any study design, and any model-based economic evaluations on pre- and post-treatment imaging in adults with cerebral glioma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane review methodology with two authors independently performing study selection and data collection, and resolving disagreements through discussion. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included one retrospective, single-institution study that compared post-operative imaging within 48 hours (early post-operative imaging) with no early post-operative imaging among 125 people who had surgery for glioblastoma (GBM: World Health Organization (WHO) grade 4 glioma). Most patients in the study underwent maximal surgical resection followed by combined radiotherapy and temozolomide treatment. Although patient characteristics in the study arms were comparable, the study was at high risk of bias overall. Evidence from this study suggested little or no difference between early and no early post-operative imaging with respect to overall survival (deaths) at one year after diagnosis of GBM (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.21; 48% vs 55% died, respectively; very low certainty evidence) and little or no difference in overall survival (deaths) at two years after diagnosis of GBM (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25; 86% vs 81% died, respectively; very low certainty evidence). No other review outcomes were reported. We found no evidence on the effectiveness of other imaging schedules. In addition, we identified no relevant economic evaluations assessing the efficiency of the different imaging strategies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effect of different imaging strategies on survival and other health outcomes remains largely unknown. Existing imaging schedules in glioma seem to be pragmatic rather than evidence-based. The limited evidence suggesting that early post-operative brain imaging among GBM patients who will receive combined chemoradiation treatment may make little or no difference to survival needs to be further researched, particularly as early post-operative imaging also serves as a quality control measure that may lead to early re-operation if residual tumour is identified. Mathematical modelling of a large glioma patient database could help to distinguish the optimal timing of surveillance imaging for different types of glioma, with stratification of patients facilitated by assessment of individual tumour growth rates, molecular biomarkers and other prognostic factors. In addition, paediatric glioma study designs could be used to inform future research of imaging strategies among adults with glioma.
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines suggest that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain should be performed at certain time points or intervals distant from diagnosis (interval or surveillance imaging) of cerebral glioma, to monitor or follow up the disease; it is not known, however, whether these imaging strategies lead to better outcomes among patients than triggered imaging in response to new or worsening symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of different imaging strategies (in particular, pre-specified interval or surveillance imaging, and symptomatic or triggered imaging) on health and economic outcomes for adults with glioma (grades 2 to 4) in the brain. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers (CGNOC) Group Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase up to 18 June 2019 and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to December 2014 (database closure). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and controlled before-after studies with concurrent comparison groups comparing the effect of different imaging strategies on survival and other health outcomes in adults with cerebral glioma; and full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses and cost-benefit analyses) conducted alongside any study design, and any model-based economic evaluations on pre- and post-treatment imaging in adults with cerebral glioma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane review methodology with two authors independently performing study selection and data collection, and resolving disagreements through discussion. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included one retrospective, single-institution study that compared post-operative imaging within 48 hours (early post-operative imaging) with no early post-operative imaging among 125 people who had surgery for glioblastoma (GBM: World Health Organization (WHO) grade 4 glioma). Most patients in the study underwent maximal surgical resection followed by combined radiotherapy and temozolomide treatment. Although patient characteristics in the study arms were comparable, the study was at high risk of bias overall. Evidence from this study suggested little or no difference between early and no early post-operative imaging with respect to overall survival (deaths) at one year after diagnosis of GBM (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.21; 48% vs 55% died, respectively; very low certainty evidence) and little or no difference in overall survival (deaths) at two years after diagnosis of GBM (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25; 86% vs 81% died, respectively; very low certainty evidence). No other review outcomes were reported. We found no evidence on the effectiveness of other imaging schedules. In addition, we identified no relevant economic evaluations assessing the efficiency of the different imaging strategies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effect of different imaging strategies on survival and other health outcomes remains largely unknown. Existing imaging schedules in glioma seem to be pragmatic rather than evidence-based. The limited evidence suggesting that early post-operative brain imaging among GBM patients who will receive combined chemoradiation treatment may make little or no difference to survival needs to be further researched, particularly as early post-operative imaging also serves as a quality control measure that may lead to early re-operation if residual tumour is identified. Mathematical modelling of a large glioma patient database could help to distinguish the optimal timing of surveillance imaging for different types of glioma, with stratification of patients facilitated by assessment of individual tumour growth rates, molecular biomarkers and other prognostic factors. In addition, paediatric glioma study designs could be used to inform future research of imaging strategies among adults with glioma.
Authors: C P Geer; J Simonds; A Anvery; M Y Chen; J H Burdette; M E Zapadka; T L Ellis; S B Tatter; G J Lesser; M D Chan; K P McMullen; A J Johnson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J C Easaw; W P Mason; J Perry; N Laperrière; D D Eisenstat; R Del Maestro; K Bélanger; D Fulton; D Macdonald Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Ashish H Shah; Karthik Madhavan; Deborah Heros; Daniel M S Raper; J Bryan Iorgulescu; Brian E Lally; Ricardo J Komotar Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Yan Li; Janine M Lupo; Mei-Yin Polley; Jason C Crane; Wei Bian; Soonmee Cha; Susan Chang; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Craig J Galbán; Thomas L Chenevert; Charles R Meyer; Christina Tsien; Theodore S Lawrence; Daniel A Hamstra; Larry Junck; Pia C Sundgren; Timothy D Johnson; Stefanie Galbán; Judith S Sebolt-Leopold; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sarah Jost Fouke; Tammie Benzinger; Daniel Gibson; Timothy C Ryken; Steven N Kalkanis; Jeffrey J Olson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Yong Sun; Zhen Dong Liu; Run Ze Liu; Xiao Yu Lian; Xing Bo Cheng; Yu Long Jia; Bin Feng Liu; Yan Zheng Gao; Xinjun Wang Journal: Mol Biol Rep Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 2.742
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: Thomas C Booth; Gerard Thompson; Helen Bulbeck; Florien Boele; Craig Buckley; Jorge Cardoso; Liane Dos Santos Canas; David Jenkinson; Keyoumars Ashkan; Jack Kreindler; Nicky Huskens; Aysha Luis; Catherine McBain; Samantha J Mills; Marc Modat; Nick Morley; Caroline Murphy; Sebastian Ourselin; Mark Pennington; James Powell; David Summers; Adam D Waldman; Colin Watts; Matthew Williams; Robin Grant; Michael D Jenkinson Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Anton Kooijmans; Tim Horeman; Sem F Hardon; Roel Horeman; Maarten van der Elst; Alexander L A Bloemendaal Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Conor S Gillespie; Emily R Bligh; Michael T C Poon; Georgios Solomou; Abdurrahman I Islim; Mohammad A Mustafa; Ola Rominiyi; Sophie T Williams; Neeraj Kalra; Ryan K Mathew; Thomas C Booth; Gerard Thompson; Paul M Brennan; Michael D Jenkinson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 3.006