Discrimination between Glioma Grades II and III Using Dynamic Susceptibility Perfusion MRI: A Meta-Analysis

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Boxerman JL,
   3. Schmainda KM,
   4. Weisskoff RM

   . Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:859–67 pmid:16611779

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   2. Boxerman JL,
   3. Shiroishi MS,
   4. Ellingson BM, et al

   . Dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging in glioma: review of current clinical practice. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2016;24:649–70 doi:10.1016/j.mric.2016.06.005 pmid:27742108

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Law M,
   3. Young R,
   4. Babb J, et al

   . Histogram analysis versus region of interest analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging data in the grading of cerebral gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:761–66 pmid:17416835

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Hilario A,
   3. Ramos A,
   4. Perez-Nuñez A, et al

   . The added value of apparent diffusion coefficient to cerebral blood volume in the preoperative grading of diffuse gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:701–07 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2846 pmid:22207304

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   2. Wang XC,
   3. Zhang H,
   4. Tan Y, et al

   . Combined value of susceptibility-weighted and perfusion-weighted imaging in assessing WHO grade for brain astrocytomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;39:1569–74 doi:10.1002/jmri.24312 pmid:24987755

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Caulo M,
   3. Panara V,
   4. Tortora D, et al

   . Data-driven grading of brain gliomas: a multiparametric MR imaging study. Radiology 2014;272:494–503 doi:10.1148/radiol.14132040 pmid:24661247

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Law M,
   3. Yang S,
   4. Wang H, et al

   . Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1989–98 pmid:14625221

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Park MJ,
   3. Kim HS,
   4. Jahng GH, et al

   . Semiquantitative assessment of intratumoral susceptibility signals using non-contrast-enhanced high-field high-resolution susceptibility-weighted imaging in patients with gliomas: comparison with MR perfusion imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1402–08 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1593 pmid:19369602

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Van Cauter S,
   3. De Keyzer F,
   4. Sima DM, et al

   . Integrating diffusion kurtosis imaging, dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI, and short echo time chemical shift imaging for grading gliomas. Neuro Oncol 2014;16:1010–21 doi:10.1093/neuonc/not304 pmid:24470551

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Kim H,
    3. Choi SH,
    4. Kim JH, et al

    . Gliomas: application of cumulative histogram analysis of normalized cerebral blood volume on 3 T MRI to tumor grading. PLoS One 2013;8:e63462 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063462 pmid:23704910

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Emblem KE,
    3. Scheie D,
    4. Due-Tonnessen P, et al

    . Histogram analysis of MR imaging-derived cerebral blood volume maps: combined glioma grading and identification of low-grade oligodendroglial subtypes. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1664–70 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1182 pmid:18583405

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Di Costanzo A,
    3. Pollice S,
    4. Trojsi F, et al

    . Role of perfusion-weighted imaging at 3 Tesla in the assessment of malignancy of cerebral gliomas [In English, Italian]. Radiol Med 2008;113:134–43 doi:10.1007/s11547-008-0232-2 pmid:18338133

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Law M,
    3. Young R,
    4. Babb J, et al

    . Comparing perfusion metrics obtained from a single compartment versus pharmacokinetic modeling methods using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with glioma grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:1975–82 pmid:17032878

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Caseiras GB,
    3. Chheang S,
    4. Babb J, et al

    . Relative cerebral blood volume measurements of low-grade gliomas predict patient outcome in a multi-institution setting. Eur J Radiol 2010;73:215–20 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.11.005 pmid:19201123

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Nasseri M,
    3. Gahramanov S,
    4. Netto JP, et al

    . Evaluation of pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma multiforme using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging with ferumoxytol calls RANO criteria into question. Neuro Oncol 2014;16:1146–54 doi:10.1093/neuonc/not328 pmid:24523362

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Hu LS,
    3. Kelm Z,
    4. Korfiatis P, et al

    . Impact of software modeling on the accuracy of perfusion MRI in glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:2242–49 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4451 pmid:26359151

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Louis DN,
    3. Perry A,
    4. Reifenberger G, et al

    . The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 2016;131:803–20 doi:10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 pmid:27157931

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Usinskiene J,
    3. Ulyte A,
    4. Bjornerud A, et al

    . Optimal differentiation of high- and low-grade glioma and metastasis: a meta-analysis of perfusion, diffusion, and spectroscopy metrics. Neuroradiology 2016;58:339–50 doi:10.1007/s00234-016-1642-9 pmid:26767528

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Crocetti E,
    3. Trama A,
    4. Stiller C, et al

    . Epidemiology of glial and non-glial brain tumours in Europe. Eur J Cancer 2012;48:1532–42 doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2011.12.013 pmid:22227039

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Kelly PJ,
    3. Daumas-Duport C,
    4. Kispert DB, et al

    . Imaging-based stereotaxic serial biopsies in untreated intracranial glial neoplasms. J Neurosurg 1987;66:865–74 doi:10.3171/jns.1987.66.6.0865 pmid:3033172

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Catalaa I,
    3. Henry R,
    4. Dillon WP, et al

    . Perfusion, diffusion and spectroscopy values in newly diagnosed cerebral gliomas. NMR Biomed 2006;19:463–75 doi:10.1002/nbm.1059 pmid:16763973

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    2. Cuccarini V,
    3. Erbetta A,
    4. Farinotti M, et al

    . Advanced MRI may complement histological diagnosis of lower grade gliomas and help in predicting survival. J Neurooncol 2016;126:279–88 doi:10.1007/s11060-015-1960-5 pmid:26468137

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Nguyen TB,
    3. Cron GO,
    4. Perdrizet K, et al

    . Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of DSC- and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the preoperative grading of astrocytomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:2017–22 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4398 pmid:26228886

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    2. Saito T,
    3. Yamasaki F,
    4. Kajiwara Y, et al

    . Role of perfusion-weighted imaging at 3T in the histopathological differentiation between astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:1863–69 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.04.009 pmid:21543173

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Thomsen H,
    3. Steffensen E,
    4. Larsson EM

    . Perfusion MRI (dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging) with different measurement approaches for the evaluation of blood flow and blood volume in human gliomas. Acta Radiol 2012;53:95–101 doi:10.1258/ar.2011.110242 pmid:22114021

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Toyooka M,
    3. Kimura H,
    4. Uematsu H, et al

    . Tissue characterization of glioma by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: glioma grading and histological correlation. Clin Imaging 2008;32:251–58 doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2007.12.006 pmid:18603178

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Togao O,
    3. Hiwatashi A,
    4. Yamashita K, et al

    . Grading diffuse gliomas without intense contrast enhancement by amide proton transfer MR imaging: comparisons with diffusion- and perfusion-weighted imaging. Eur Radiol 2017;27:578–88 doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4328-0 pmid:27003139

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Moher D,
    3. Liberati A,
    4. Tetzlaff J, et al

    . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535 doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 pmid:19622551

    FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    2. McGrath TA,
    3. McInnes MD,
    4. Korevaar DA, et al

    . Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy in imaging journals: analysis of pooling techniques and their effect on summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 2016;281:78–85 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016152229 pmid:27082781

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Whiting PF,
    3. Rutjes AW,
    4. Westwood ME, et al

    . QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 pmid:22007046

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    2. Higgins JP,
    3. Green S

    . Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011)Accessed September 6, 2016. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Accessed September 6, 2016.
32. 32.↵
    2. Hozo SP,
    3. Djulbegovic B,
    4. Hozo I

    . Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:13 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-13 pmid:15840177

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Light RJ,
    3. Pillemer DB

    . Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1984
34. 34.↵
    2. Doebler P,
    3. Holling H

    . Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy with mada. 2015. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mada/vignettes/mada.pdf. Accessed September 6, 2016.
35. 35.↵
    R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010
36. 36.↵
    Review Manager (RevMan). 5.3 ed. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014 http://www.medsci.cn/webeditor/uploadfile/201408/20140815214316360.pdf. Accessed September 6, 2016.
37. 37.↵
    2. Falk A,
    3. Fahlström M,
    4. Rostrup E, et al

    . Discrimination between glioma grades II and III in suspected low-grade gliomas using dynamic contrast-enhanced and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging: a histogram analysis approach. Neuroradiology 2014;56:1031–38 doi:10.1007/s00234-014-1426-z pmid:25204450

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Cairncross JG,
    3. Wang M,
    4. Jenkins RB, et al

    . Benefit from procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine in oligodendroglial tumors is associated with mutation of IDH. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:783–90 doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.49.3726 pmid:24516018

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    2. van den Bent MJ,
    3. Brandes AA,
    4. Taphoorn MJ, et al

    . Adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine chemotherapy in newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglioma: long-term follow-up of EORTC brain tumor group study 26951. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:344–50 doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.43.2229 pmid:23071237

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
40. 40.↵
    2. Eckel-Passow JE,
    3. Lachance DH,
    4. Molinaro AM, et al

    . Glioma groups based on 1p/19q, IDH, and TERT promoter mutations in tumors. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2499–508 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1407279 pmid:26061753

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    2. Brat DJ,
    3. Verhaak RG,
    4. Aldape KD, et al

    ; Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive, integrative genomic analysis of diffuse lower-grade gliomas. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2481–98 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1402121 pmid:26061751

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. Kiselev VG,
    3. Posse S

    . Analytical model of susceptibility-induced MR signal dephasing: effect of diffusion in a microvascular network. Magn Reson Med 1999;41:499–509 pmid:10204873

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    2. Yablonskiy DA,
    3. Haacke EM

    . Theory of NMR signal behavior in magnetically inhomogeneous tissues: the static dephasing regime. Magn Reson Med 1994;32:749–63 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910320610 pmid:7869897

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science