Comparison of Arterial Spin-Labeling and DSC Perfusion MR Imaging in Pediatric Brain Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Barkovich AJ

   . Pediatric Neuroimaging. 4th ed. Chapter 7: Intracranial, orbital and neck masses of childhood. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005:506–08
2. 2.↵
   Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. SEER*Stat Database: Mortality-All COD, Aggregated With State, Total U.S. (1969-2017) <Katrina/Rita Population Adjustment>, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program. Underlying mortality data provided by NCHS; 2019. Accessed January 20, 2023. www.cdc.gov/nchs.
3. 3.↵
   1. Borja MJ,
   2. Plaza MJ,
   3. Altman N, et al

   . Conventional and advanced MRI features of pediatric intracranial tumors: supratentorial tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:W483–503 doi:10.2214/AJR.12.9724 pmid:23617516

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Peet AC,
   2. Arvanitis TN,
   3. Leach MO, et al

   . Functional imaging in adult and paediatric brain tumours. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012;9:700–11 doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.187 pmid:23149894

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Lacerda S,
   2. Law M

   . Magnetic resonance perfusion and permeability imaging in brain tumors. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2009;19:527–57 doi:10.1016/j.nic.2009.08.007 pmid:19959004

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Farid N,
   2. Almeida-Freitas DB,
   3. White NS, et al

   . Combining diffusion and perfusion differentiates tumor from bevacizumab-related imaging abnormality (bria). J Neurooncol 2014;120:539–46 doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1583-2 pmid:25135423

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Hipp SJ,
   2. Steffen-Smith E,
   3. Hammoud D, et al

   . Predicting outcome of children with diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas using multiparametric imaging. Neuro Oncol 2011;13:904–09 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nor076 pmid:21757444

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Kanda T,
   2. Fukusato T,
   3. Matsuda M, et al

   . Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology 2015;276:228–32 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142690 pmid:25942417

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. McDonald RJ,
   2. McDonald JS,
   3. Kallmes DF, et al

   . Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2015;275:772–82 doi:10.1148/radiol.15150025 pmid:25742194

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Kitajima M,
    2. Uetani H

    . Arterial spin labeling for pediatric central nervous system diseases: techniques and clinical applications. Magn Reson Med Sci 2023;22:27–43 doi:10.2463/mrms.rev.2021-0118

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Romano A,
    2. Rossi Espagnet MC,
    3. Calabria LF, et al

    . Clinical applications of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion-weighted MR imaging in brain tumours. Radiol Med 2012;117:445–60 doi:10.1007/s11547-011-0715-4 pmid:21892719

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Kerner DM,
    2. Nikam R,
    3. Kandula VVR, et al

    . Pearls and pitfalls in arterial spin labeling perfusion-weighted imaging in clinical pediatric imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2022;43:19–30 doi:10.1053/j.sult.2021.05.003 pmid:35164906

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Ata ES,
    2. Turgut M,
    3. Eraslan C, et al

    . Comparison between dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging and arterial spin labeling techniques in distinguishing malignant from benign brain tumors. Eur J Radiology 2016;85:1545–53 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.05.015 pmid:27501887

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Cebeci H,
    2. Aydin O,
    3. Ozturk-Isik E, et al

    . Assessment of perfusion in glial tumors with arterial spin labeling: comparison with dynamic susceptibility contrast method. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:1914–19 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.07.002 pmid:25087109

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Hirai T,
    2. Kitajima M,
    3. Nakamura H, et al

    . Quantitative blood flow measurements in gliomas using arterial spin-labeling at 3T: intermodality agreement and inter- and intraobserver reproducibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:2073–79 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2725 pmid:21960503

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Järnum H,
    2. Steffensen EG,
    3. Knutsson L, et al

    . Perfusion MRI of brain tumours: a comparative study of pseudo-continuous arterial spin labelling and dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging. Neuroradiology 2010;52:307–17 doi:10.1007/s00234-009-0616-6 pmid:19841916

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Luan J,
    2. Wu M,
    3. Wang X, et al

    . The diagnostic value of quantitative analysis of ASL, DSC-MRI and DKI in the grading of cerebral gliomas: a meta-analysis. Radiat Oncol 2020;15:204 doi:10.1186/s13014-020-01643-y pmid:32831106

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Rau MK,
    2. Braun C,
    3. Skardelly M, et al

    . Prognostic value of blood flow estimated by arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging in high-grade gliomas. J Neurooncol 2014;120:557–66 doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1586-z pmid:25154323

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Warmuth C,
    2. Günther M,
    3. Zimmer C

    . Quantification of blood flow in brain tumors: comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;228:523–32 doi:10.1148/radiol.2282020409 pmid:12819338

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. White CM,
    2. Pope WB,
    3. Zaw T, et al

    . Regional and voxel-wise comparisons of blood flow measurements between dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DSC-MRI) and arterial spin labeling (ASL) in brain tumors. J Neuroimaging 2014;24:23–30 doi:10.1111/j.1552-6569.2012.00703.x pmid:22672084

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System. 5th edition. Volume 6. International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2021.
22. 22.↵
    1. Richardson WS,
    2. Wilson MC,
    3. Nishikawa J, et al

    . The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995;123:A12–13 pmid:7582737

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Leeflang MM,
    2. Deeks JJ,
    3. Takwoingi Y, et al

    . Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Syst Rev 2013;2:82 doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-82 pmid:24099098

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Moher D,
    2. Liberati A,
    3. Tetzlaff J, et al

    ; PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 pmid:19621072

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Ouzzani M,
    2. Hammady H,
    3. Fedorowicz Z, et al

    . Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016;5:210 doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 pmid:27919275

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Whiting PF,
    2. Rutjes AWS,
    3. Westwood ME, et al

    ; QUADAS-2 Group. 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
27. 27.↵
    1. Delgado AF,
    2. De Luca F,
    3. Hanagandi P, et al

    . Arterial spin-labeling in children with brain tumor: a meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:1536–42 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5727 pmid:30072368

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2021. Accessed May 5, 2023. https://www.R-project.org
29. 29.↵
    1. Viechtbauer W

    . Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Soft 2010;36:1–48 doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Reitsma JB,
    2. Glas AS,
    3. Rutjes AWS, et al

    . Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:982–90 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 pmid:16168343

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    Doebler PSPB. mada: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy; 2022. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mada. Accessed March 4, 2023
32. 32.↵
    1. Dallery F,
    2. Bouzerar R,
    3. Michel D, et al

    . Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric brain tumors. Neuroradiology 2017;59:1143–53 doi:10.1007/s00234-017-1917-9 pmid:28861622

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Dangouloff-Ros V,
    2. Deroulers C,
    3. Foissac F, et al

    . Arterial spin labeling to predict brain tumor grading in children: correlations between histopathologic vascular density and perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2016;281:553–66 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016152228 pmid:27257950

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Hales PW,
    2. d’Arco F,
    3. Cooper J, et al

    . Arterial spin labelling and diffusion-weighted imaging in paediatric brain tumours. Neuroimage Clin 2019;22:101696 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101696 pmid:30735859

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Ho CY,
    2. Cardinal JS,
    3. Kamer AP, et al

    . Relative cerebral blood volume from dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion in the grading of pediatric primary brain tumors. Neuroradiology 2015;57:299–306 doi:10.1007/s00234-014-1478-0 pmid:25504266

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Kikuchi K,
    2. Hiwatashi A,
    3. Togao O, et al

    . Correlation between arterial spin-labeling perfusion and histopathological vascular density of pediatric intracranial tumors. J Neurooncol 2017;135:561–69 doi:10.1007/s11060-017-2604-8 pmid:28856499

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Morana G,
    2. Piccardo A,
    3. Tortora D, et al

    . Grading and outcome prediction of pediatric diffuse astrocytic tumors with diffusion and arterial spin labeling perfusion MRI in comparison with 18F–DOPA PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017;44:2084–93 doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3777-2 pmid:28752225

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Morana G,
    2. Tortora D,
    3. Staglianò S, et al

    . Pediatric astrocytic tumor grading: comparison between arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI perfusion. Neuroradiology 2018;60:437–46 doi:10.1007/s00234-018-1992-6 pmid:29453753

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Piccardo A,
    2. Tortora D,
    3. Mascelli S, et al

    . Advanced MR imaging and 18F-DOPA PET characteristics of H3K27M-mutant and wild-type pediatric diffuse midline gliomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019;46:1685–94 doi:10.1007/s00259-019-04333-4 pmid:31030232

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Testud B,
    2. Brun G,
    3. Varoquaux A, et al

    . Perfusion-weighted techniques in MRI grading of pediatric cerebral tumors: efficiency of dynamic susceptibility contrast and arterial spin labeling. Neuroradiology 2021;63:1353–66 doi:10.1007/s00234-021-02640-y pmid:33506349

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Withey SB,
    2. MacPherson L,
    3. Oates A, et al

    . Dynamic susceptibility-contrast magnetic resonance imaging with contrast agent leakage correction aids in predicting grade in pediatric brain tumours: a multicenter study. Pediatr Radiol 2022;52:1134–49 doi:10.1007/s00247-021-05266-7 pmid:35290489

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Boxerman JL,
    2. Schmainda KM,
    3. 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

    PubMedWeb of Science
43. 43.↵
    1. Alsop DC,
    2. Detre JA,
    3. Golay X, et al

    . Recommended implementation of arterial spin-labeled perfusion MRI for clinical applications: a consensus of the ISMRM perfusion study group and the European consortium for ASL in dementia. Magn Reson Med 2015;73:102–16 doi:10.1002/mrm.25197 pmid:24715426

    CrossRefPubMed