» Articles » PMID: 32501974

Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Measurements for Differentiating Glioma Recurrence from Pseudoprogression

Overview
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2020 Jun 6
PMID 32501974
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The accurate differentiation of glioma recurrence from pseudoprogression (PSP) after therapy remains a considerable clinical challenge. Several studies have shown that diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has potential value in distinguishing these 2 outcomes. The current meta-analysis examined the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion MRI with the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in the differentiation of glioma recurrence from PSP.

Method: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedical databases were reviewed to identify studies that fulfilled our inclusion/exclusion criteria and were published on or before May 5, 2019. Threshold effects; heterogeneity; pooled sensitivity (SENS), specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio; and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated. The overall diagnostic usefulness of diffusion MRI-derived ADC values was assessed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) following summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) analysis.

Results: Six eligible studies examined a total of 214 patients. Calculation of pooled values indicated the SENS was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89-0.98), specificity was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.72-0.91), positive likelihood ratio was 4.82 (95% CI = 2.93-7.93), negative likelihood ratio was 0.08 (95% CI = 0.04-0.17), and diagnostic odds ratio was 59.63 (95% CI = 22.63-157.37). The SROC AUC was 0.9322. Publication bias was not significant, and SENS analysis indicated the results were relatively stable.

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis indicated that diffusion MRI with quantitative ADC is an effective approach for differentiation of glioma recurrence from PSP, and can be used as an auxiliary tool to diagnose glioma progression.

Citing Articles

Deep Learning Segmentation of Infiltrative and Enhancing Cellular Tumor at Pre- and Posttreatment Multishell Diffusion MRI of Glioblastoma.

Gagnon L, Gupta D, Mastorakos G, White N, Goodwill V, McDonald C Radiol Artif Intell. 2024; 6(5):e230489.

PMID: 39166970 PMC: 11427928. DOI: 10.1148/ryai.230489.


Umbrella review and network meta-analysis of diagnostic imaging test accuracy studies in Differentiating between brain tumor progression versus pseudoprogression and radionecrosis.

Dagher R, Gad M, da Silva de Santana P, Sadeghi M, Yewedalsew S, Gujar S J Neurooncol. 2024; 166(1):1-15.

PMID: 38212574 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-023-04528-8.


Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Metrics to Differentiate between Treatment-Related Abnormalities and Tumor Progression in Post-Treatment Glioblastoma Patients: A Retrospective Study.

van den Elshout R, Herings S, Mannil M, Gijtenbeek A, Laan M, Smeenk R Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(20).

PMID: 37894355 PMC: 10605800. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15204990.


Undetected pseudoprogressions in the CeTeG/NOA-09 trial: hints from postprogression survival and MRI analyses.

Zeyen T, Paech D, Weller J, Schafer N, Tzaridis T, Duffy C J Neurooncol. 2023; 164(3):607-616.

PMID: 37728779 PMC: 10589172. DOI: 10.1007/s11060-023-04444-x.


Conventional and Advanced Imaging Techniques in Post-treatment Glioma Imaging.

Li A, Iv M Front Radiol. 2023; 2:883293.

PMID: 37492665 PMC: 10365131. DOI: 10.3389/fradi.2022.883293.


References
1.
Chen Z, Ma L, Lou X, Zhou Z . Diagnostic value of minimum apparent diffusion coefficient values in prediction of neuroepithelial tumor grading. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 31(6):1331-8. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22175. View

2.
Taal W, Brandsma D, de Bruin H, Bromberg J, Swaak-Kragten A, Sillevis Smitt P . Incidence of early pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemoirradiation with temozolomide. Cancer. 2008; 113(2):405-10. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23562. View

3.
Whiting P, Rutjes A, Westwood M, Mallett S, Deeks J, Reitsma J . QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(8):529-36. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. View

4.
Bammer R . Basic principles of diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2003; 45(3):169-84. DOI: 10.1016/s0720-048x(02)00303-0. View

5.
Reimer C, Deike K, Graf M, Reimer P, Wiestler B, Floca R . Differentiation of pseudoprogression and real progression in glioblastoma using ADC parametric response maps. PLoS One. 2017; 12(4):e0174620. PMC: 5383222. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174620. View