Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIG 1.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart of the study inclusion process.
- FIG 2.
Sensitivity and specificity plots for ASL.
- FIG 3.
Sensitivity and specificity plots for DSC.
- FIG 4.
SROC curve (bivariate) for all studies.
- FIG 5.
Comparison SROC curves (bivariate) of ASL and DSC.
Tables
Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Study design Peer reviewed studies based on original data analysis. Literature that was not published through traditional academic or commercial publishers. Published from 2012 onwards. Literature reviews, case reports, or case controls. Participants Human subjects younger than the age of 18. Adult only or mixed adult and pediatric subjects. Diagnosis of brain tumor.Treatment naïve. Previously treated with either surgery, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy. Index test ASL and/or DSC MRI perfusion. DCE perfusion. Availability of result data. No author response to inquiry for data clarification. Standard test Histologic assessment following biopsy or resection (except in cases of optic pathway/brainstem glioma). No histologic diagnosis. Use of WHO classification for tumor grading. First Author,Publication Year Region No. of Cases Median/Mean Age Tumor Grade n Field Strength Perfusion Technique Diagnostic Parameters Dallery, 2017 France 30 9.4 11 LG, 19 1.5 & 3T DSC rCBF, rCBV HG GE Dangouloff-Ros, 2016 France 117 6.2 52 LG, 65 1.5T GE ASL rCBF HG Hales, 2019 UK 32 4.5 13 LG, 19 1.5 & 3T ASL rCBF HG Siemens Ho, 2015 USA 63 6.3 38 LG, 25 1.5 & 3T DSC rCBV HG Siemens Kikuchi, 2017 Japan 19 6 11 LG, 8 HG 3T Philips ASL rCBF Morana, 2017 Italy 26 9.5 12 LG, 14 1.5T ASL rCBF HG Philips Morana, 2018 Italy 37 9 22 LG, 15 1.5T ASL & DSC rCBF, rCBV HG Philips Piccardo, 2019 Italy 22 9 10 LG, 12 1.5T ASL rCBF HG Philips Testud, 2021 France 46 7 15 LG, 31 1.5 & 3T ASL & DSC rCBF, rCBV HG Siemens Withey, 2022 UK 85 8 45 LG, 40 1.5 & 3T DSC rCBV HG Various Study, Publication Year Risk of Bias Applicability Concerns Patient Selection Index Test Reference Standard Flow and Timing Patient Selection Index Test Reference Standard Dallery et al, 2017 + − ? ? + + + Dangouloff-Ros et al, 2016 + + + ? + + + Hales et al, 2019 + + ? ? + + + Ho et al, 2015 + − ? ? + + + Kikuchi et al, 2017 + − ? ? + + + Morana et al, 2017 + − ? ? + − + Morana et al, 2018 + − ? ? + − + Piccardo et al, 2019 + − ? ? ? − + Testud et al, 2021 + + ? ? + − + Withey et al, 2022 + − ? ? + + + Note:—+ indicates low risk; ?, unclear risk; −, high risk.
Study No. of Cases Tumor Grade n Perfusion Technique Diagnostic Parameters LG HG Dallery et al, 2017 30 11 LG, 19 HG DSC rCBF 0.87 ± 0.41 2.37 ± 1.38 rCBV 0.99 ± 0.50 2.69 ± 1.35 Dangouloff-Ros et al, 2016 117 52 LG, 65 HG ASL rCBF 0.68 ± 0.24 1.74 ± 1.45 Hales et al, 2019 32 13 LG, 19 HG ASL rCBF n/a n/a Ho et al, 2015 63 38 LG, 25 HG DSC rCBV 0.99 ± 0.53 1.48 ± 0.95 Kikuchi et al, 2017 19 11 LG, 8 HG ASL rCBF 0.69 ± 0.81 1.76 ± 0.95 Morana et al, 2017 26 12 LG, 14 HG ASL rCBF 0.81 ± 0.56 2.08 ± 0.98 Morana et al, 2018 37 22 LG, 15 HG ASL & DSC rCBF 0.59 ± 0.27 1.37 ± 0.26 rCBV 0.49 ± 0.33 1.51 ± 0.34 Piccardo et al, 2019 22 10 LG, 12 HG ASL rCBF 1.20 ± 0.49 1.89 ± 0.45 Testud et al, 2021 46 15 LG, 31 HG ASL & DSC rCBF, rCBV n/a n/a Withey et al, 2022 85 45 LG, 40 HG DSC rCBV 1.68 ± 1.36 2.54 ± 1.63 Note:—n/a indicates not available.
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.