Evidence Hub

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with high-grade glioma, a systematic review and meta-analysis

van Dijken BRJ, van Laar PJ, Holtman GA, van der Hoorn A

European radiology, 2017

708 participants · 228 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Treatment response assessment in high-grade gliomas uses contrast enhanced T1-weighted MRI, but is unreliable. Novel advanced MRI techniques have been studied, but the accuracy is not well known. Therefore, we performed a systematic meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of anatomical and advanced MRI for treatment response in high-grade gliomas.

METHODS: Databases were searched systematically. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random effects model when ≥5 studies were included.

RESULTS: Anatomical MRI (five studies, 166 patients) showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 68% (95%CI 51-81) and 77% (45-93), respectively. Pooled apparent diffusion coefficients (seven studies, 204 patients) demonstrated a sensitivity of 71% (60-80) and specificity of 87% (77-93). DSC-perfusion (18 studies, 708 patients) sensitivity was 87% (82-91) with a specificity of 86% (77-91). DCE-perfusion (five studies, 207 patients) sensitivity was 92% (73-98) and specificity was 85% (76-92). The sensitivity of spectroscopy (nine studies, 203 patients) was 91% (79-97) and specificity was 95% (65-99).

CONCLUSION: Advanced techniques showed higher diagnostic accuracy than anatomical MRI, the highest for spectroscopy, supporting the use in treatment response assessment in high-grade gliomas.

KEY POINTS: • Treatment response assessment in high-grade gliomas with anatomical MRI is unreliable •…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 708 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free