Hechuan Luo1, Ling He1, Weiqin Cheng1, Sijie Gao1. 1. Department of Radiology, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Pediatrics, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disorders, China International Science and Technology Cooperation base of Child development and Critical Disorders, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis was carried out for assessing the accuracy of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters true diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), and perfusion fraction (f) in differentiating low-grade gliomas (LGGs) from high-grade gliomas (HGGs). METHODS: Literatures concerning IVIM in the grading of brain gliomas published prior to October 20, 2020, searched in the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane library. Use the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS 2) to evaluate the quality of studies. We estimated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the summary ROC (SROC) curve to identification the accuracy of IVIM parameters D, D*, and f evaluation in grading gliomas. RESULTS: Totally, 6 articles including 252 brain gliomas conform to the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity of parameters D, D*, and f derived from IVIM were 0.85 (95%Cl, 0.76-0.91), 0.78 (95%Cl, 0.71-0.85), and 0.89 (95%Cl, 0.76-0.96), respectively. The pooled specificity were 0.78 (95%Cl, 0.60-0.90), 0.68 (95%Cl, 0.56-0.79), and 0.88 (95%Cl, 0.76-0.94), respectively. Meanwhile, the AUC of SROC curve were 0.89 (95%Cl, 0.86-0.92) , 0.81 (95%Cl, 0.77-0.84), and 0.94 (95%Cl, 0.92-0.96), respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggested that IVIM parameters D, D*, and f have moderate or high diagnosis value accuracy in differentiating HGGs from LGGs, and the parameter f has greater sensitivity and specificity. Standardized methodology is warranted to guide the use of this method for clinical decision-making. However, more clinical studies are needed to prove our view. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: IVIM parameter f showed greater sensitivity and specificity, as well as excellent performance than parameter D* and D.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis was carried out for assessing the accuracy of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters true diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), and perfusion fraction (f) in differentiating low-grade gliomas (LGGs) from high-grade gliomas (HGGs). METHODS: Literatures concerning IVIM in the grading of brain gliomas published prior to October 20, 2020, searched in the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane library. Use the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS 2) to evaluate the quality of studies. We estimated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the summary ROC (SROC) curve to identification the accuracy of IVIM parameters D, D*, and f evaluation in grading gliomas. RESULTS: Totally, 6 articles including 252 brain gliomas conform to the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity of parameters D, D*, and f derived from IVIM were 0.85 (95%Cl, 0.76-0.91), 0.78 (95%Cl, 0.71-0.85), and 0.89 (95%Cl, 0.76-0.96), respectively. The pooled specificity were 0.78 (95%Cl, 0.60-0.90), 0.68 (95%Cl, 0.56-0.79), and 0.88 (95%Cl, 0.76-0.94), respectively. Meanwhile, the AUC of SROC curve were 0.89 (95%Cl, 0.86-0.92) , 0.81 (95%Cl, 0.77-0.84), and 0.94 (95%Cl, 0.92-0.96), respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggested that IVIM parameters D, D*, and f have moderate or high diagnosis value accuracy in differentiating HGGs from LGGs, and the parameter f has greater sensitivity and specificity. Standardized methodology is warranted to guide the use of this method for clinical decision-making. However, more clinical studies are needed to prove our view. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: IVIM parameter f showed greater sensitivity and specificity, as well as excellent performance than parameter D* and D.
Authors: Quinn T Ostrom; Haley Gittleman; Peter Liao; Toni Vecchione-Koval; Yingli Wolinsky; Carol Kruchko; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 12.300
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: Kine Mari Bakke; Endre Grøvik; Sebastian Meltzer; Anne Negård; Stein Harald Holmedal; Lars Tore G Mikalsen; Lars Gustav Lyckander; Anne H Ree; Kjell-Inge Gjesdal; Kathrine R Redalen; Atle Bjørnerud Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 4.813