Diagnostic accuracy of MRI techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with brain metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

•MRI is the cornerstone of brain metastasis follow-up after treatment.•DWI and PWI combined shows the best diagnostic accuracy during response evaluation.•External validation of DSC perfusion shows an optimal rCBV cut-off value of 2.1. Treatment response assessment in patients with brain metastasis...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiotherapy and oncology 2022-12, Vol.177, p.121-133
Hauptverfasser: Teunissen, Wouter H.T., Govaerts, Chris W., Kramer, Miranda C.A., Labrecque, Jeremy A., Smits, Marion, Dirven, Linda, van der Hoorn, Anouk
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 133
container_issue
container_start_page 121
container_title Radiotherapy and oncology
container_volume 177
creator Teunissen, Wouter H.T.
Govaerts, Chris W.
Kramer, Miranda C.A.
Labrecque, Jeremy A.
Smits, Marion
Dirven, Linda
van der Hoorn, Anouk
description •MRI is the cornerstone of brain metastasis follow-up after treatment.•DWI and PWI combined shows the best diagnostic accuracy during response evaluation.•External validation of DSC perfusion shows an optimal rCBV cut-off value of 2.1. Treatment response assessment in patients with brain metastasis uses contrast enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Advanced MRI techniques have been studied, but the diagnostic accuracy is not well known. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available MRI techniques for treatment response. A systematic literature search was done. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random effects model. An independent cohort was used for DSC perfusion external validation of diagnostic accuracy. Anatomical MRI (16 studies, 726 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 76%. DCE perfusion (4 studies, 114 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 92%. DSC perfusion (12 studies, 418 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity was 83% with a specificity of 78%. Diffusion weighted imaging (7 studies, 288 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 79%. MRS (4 studies, 54 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 78%. Combined techniques (6 studies, 375 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 88%. External validation of DSC showed a lower sensitivity and a higher specificity for the reported cut-off values included in this metaanalysis. A combination of techniques shows the highest diagnostic accuracy differentiating tumor progression from treatment induced abnormalities. External validation of imaging results is important to better define the reliability of imaging results with the different techniques.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.10.026
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2736663370</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0167814022045212</els_id><sourcerecordid>2736663370</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-f6011f38ae5d3ce572dbd97500035f08d74affab9e922c6d8643799ec18e7cfc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kd9qFDEUxoNY7Fp9A5FcejNrMtlJZrwQSuufQkUQvQ5nkxObZSZZk0zLvkUf2Yxbe1kIJHz5nXP4zkfIG87WnHH5frdOYGMw65a1bZXWrJXPyIr3amhY36vnZFUx1fR8w07Jy5x3jLGWCfWCnAoplGKDWJH7Sw-_Q8zFGwrGzAnMgUZHv_24ogXNTfB_ZszUxURLQigThkIT5n0MGSnewjhD8TFQH-i-vup3pne-3NBtgqpNWCDX4_MHek7zIRecYBmW8NbjHYVg_zENBBgPFXtFThyMGV8_3Gfk1-dPPy--Ntffv1xdnF83RnSqNE4yzp3oATsrDHaqtVs7qK56FJ1jvVUbcA62Aw5ta6Tt5UaoYUDDe1TGGXFG3h377lNcLBY9-WxwHCFgnLNulZBSCqFYRTdH1KSYc0Kn98lPkA6aM71koXf6mIVesljUmkUte_swYd5OaB-L_i-_Ah-PAFafdRtJZ1MXaND6hKZoG_3TE_4C-tagJA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2736663370</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diagnostic accuracy of MRI techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with brain metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Teunissen, Wouter H.T. ; Govaerts, Chris W. ; Kramer, Miranda C.A. ; Labrecque, Jeremy A. ; Smits, Marion ; Dirven, Linda ; van der Hoorn, Anouk</creator><creatorcontrib>Teunissen, Wouter H.T. ; Govaerts, Chris W. ; Kramer, Miranda C.A. ; Labrecque, Jeremy A. ; Smits, Marion ; Dirven, Linda ; van der Hoorn, Anouk</creatorcontrib><description>•MRI is the cornerstone of brain metastasis follow-up after treatment.•DWI and PWI combined shows the best diagnostic accuracy during response evaluation.•External validation of DSC perfusion shows an optimal rCBV cut-off value of 2.1. Treatment response assessment in patients with brain metastasis uses contrast enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Advanced MRI techniques have been studied, but the diagnostic accuracy is not well known. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available MRI techniques for treatment response. A systematic literature search was done. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random effects model. An independent cohort was used for DSC perfusion external validation of diagnostic accuracy. Anatomical MRI (16 studies, 726 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 76%. DCE perfusion (4 studies, 114 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 92%. DSC perfusion (12 studies, 418 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity was 83% with a specificity of 78%. Diffusion weighted imaging (7 studies, 288 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 79%. MRS (4 studies, 54 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 78%. Combined techniques (6 studies, 375 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 88%. External validation of DSC showed a lower sensitivity and a higher specificity for the reported cut-off values included in this metaanalysis. A combination of techniques shows the highest diagnostic accuracy differentiating tumor progression from treatment induced abnormalities. External validation of imaging results is important to better define the reliability of imaging results with the different techniques.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-8140</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0887</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.10.026</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36377093</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Brain metastasis ; Brain Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Brain Neoplasms - pathology ; Brain Neoplasms - therapy ; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Meta-analysis ; MRI ; Pseudoprogression ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Treatment response</subject><ispartof>Radiotherapy and oncology, 2022-12, Vol.177, p.121-133</ispartof><rights>2022 The Author(s)</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-f6011f38ae5d3ce572dbd97500035f08d74affab9e922c6d8643799ec18e7cfc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167814022045212$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36377093$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Teunissen, Wouter H.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Govaerts, Chris W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kramer, Miranda C.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Labrecque, Jeremy A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smits, Marion</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dirven, Linda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Hoorn, Anouk</creatorcontrib><title>Diagnostic accuracy of MRI techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with brain metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Radiotherapy and oncology</title><addtitle>Radiother Oncol</addtitle><description>•MRI is the cornerstone of brain metastasis follow-up after treatment.•DWI and PWI combined shows the best diagnostic accuracy during response evaluation.•External validation of DSC perfusion shows an optimal rCBV cut-off value of 2.1. Treatment response assessment in patients with brain metastasis uses contrast enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Advanced MRI techniques have been studied, but the diagnostic accuracy is not well known. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available MRI techniques for treatment response. A systematic literature search was done. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random effects model. An independent cohort was used for DSC perfusion external validation of diagnostic accuracy. Anatomical MRI (16 studies, 726 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 76%. DCE perfusion (4 studies, 114 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 92%. DSC perfusion (12 studies, 418 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity was 83% with a specificity of 78%. Diffusion weighted imaging (7 studies, 288 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 79%. MRS (4 studies, 54 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 78%. Combined techniques (6 studies, 375 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 88%. External validation of DSC showed a lower sensitivity and a higher specificity for the reported cut-off values included in this metaanalysis. A combination of techniques shows the highest diagnostic accuracy differentiating tumor progression from treatment induced abnormalities. External validation of imaging results is important to better define the reliability of imaging results with the different techniques.</description><subject>Brain metastasis</subject><subject>Brain Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Brain Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Brain Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>MRI</subject><subject>Pseudoprogression</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Treatment response</subject><issn>0167-8140</issn><issn>1879-0887</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kd9qFDEUxoNY7Fp9A5FcejNrMtlJZrwQSuufQkUQvQ5nkxObZSZZk0zLvkUf2Yxbe1kIJHz5nXP4zkfIG87WnHH5frdOYGMw65a1bZXWrJXPyIr3amhY36vnZFUx1fR8w07Jy5x3jLGWCfWCnAoplGKDWJH7Sw-_Q8zFGwrGzAnMgUZHv_24ogXNTfB_ZszUxURLQigThkIT5n0MGSnewjhD8TFQH-i-vup3pne-3NBtgqpNWCDX4_MHek7zIRecYBmW8NbjHYVg_zENBBgPFXtFThyMGV8_3Gfk1-dPPy--Ntffv1xdnF83RnSqNE4yzp3oATsrDHaqtVs7qK56FJ1jvVUbcA62Aw5ta6Tt5UaoYUDDe1TGGXFG3h377lNcLBY9-WxwHCFgnLNulZBSCqFYRTdH1KSYc0Kn98lPkA6aM71koXf6mIVesljUmkUte_swYd5OaB-L_i-_Ah-PAFafdRtJZ1MXaND6hKZoG_3TE_4C-tagJA</recordid><startdate>202212</startdate><enddate>202212</enddate><creator>Teunissen, Wouter H.T.</creator><creator>Govaerts, Chris W.</creator><creator>Kramer, Miranda C.A.</creator><creator>Labrecque, Jeremy A.</creator><creator>Smits, Marion</creator><creator>Dirven, Linda</creator><creator>van der Hoorn, Anouk</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202212</creationdate><title>Diagnostic accuracy of MRI techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with brain metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Teunissen, Wouter H.T. ; Govaerts, Chris W. ; Kramer, Miranda C.A. ; Labrecque, Jeremy A. ; Smits, Marion ; Dirven, Linda ; van der Hoorn, Anouk</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-f6011f38ae5d3ce572dbd97500035f08d74affab9e922c6d8643799ec18e7cfc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Brain metastasis</topic><topic>Brain Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Brain Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Brain Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>MRI</topic><topic>Pseudoprogression</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Treatment response</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Teunissen, Wouter H.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Govaerts, Chris W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kramer, Miranda C.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Labrecque, Jeremy A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smits, Marion</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dirven, Linda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Hoorn, Anouk</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Radiotherapy and oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Teunissen, Wouter H.T.</au><au>Govaerts, Chris W.</au><au>Kramer, Miranda C.A.</au><au>Labrecque, Jeremy A.</au><au>Smits, Marion</au><au>Dirven, Linda</au><au>van der Hoorn, Anouk</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diagnostic accuracy of MRI techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with brain metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Radiotherapy and oncology</jtitle><addtitle>Radiother Oncol</addtitle><date>2022-12</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>177</volume><spage>121</spage><epage>133</epage><pages>121-133</pages><issn>0167-8140</issn><eissn>1879-0887</eissn><abstract>•MRI is the cornerstone of brain metastasis follow-up after treatment.•DWI and PWI combined shows the best diagnostic accuracy during response evaluation.•External validation of DSC perfusion shows an optimal rCBV cut-off value of 2.1. Treatment response assessment in patients with brain metastasis uses contrast enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Advanced MRI techniques have been studied, but the diagnostic accuracy is not well known. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available MRI techniques for treatment response. A systematic literature search was done. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random effects model. An independent cohort was used for DSC perfusion external validation of diagnostic accuracy. Anatomical MRI (16 studies, 726 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 76%. DCE perfusion (4 studies, 114 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 92%. DSC perfusion (12 studies, 418 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity was 83% with a specificity of 78%. Diffusion weighted imaging (7 studies, 288 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 79%. MRS (4 studies, 54 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 78%. Combined techniques (6 studies, 375 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 88%. External validation of DSC showed a lower sensitivity and a higher specificity for the reported cut-off values included in this metaanalysis. A combination of techniques shows the highest diagnostic accuracy differentiating tumor progression from treatment induced abnormalities. External validation of imaging results is important to better define the reliability of imaging results with the different techniques.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>36377093</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.radonc.2022.10.026</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-8140
ispartof Radiotherapy and oncology, 2022-12, Vol.177, p.121-133
issn 0167-8140
1879-0887
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2736663370
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Brain metastasis
Brain Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Brain Neoplasms - pathology
Brain Neoplasms - therapy
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Meta-analysis
MRI
Pseudoprogression
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
Treatment response
title Diagnostic accuracy of MRI techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with brain metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T13%3A07%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diagnostic%20accuracy%20of%20MRI%20techniques%20for%20treatment%20response%20evaluation%20in%20patients%20with%20brain%20metastasis:%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Radiotherapy%20and%20oncology&rft.au=Teunissen,%20Wouter%20H.T.&rft.date=2022-12&rft.volume=177&rft.spage=121&rft.epage=133&rft.pages=121-133&rft.issn=0167-8140&rft.eissn=1879-0887&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.radonc.2022.10.026&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2736663370%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2736663370&rft_id=info:pmid/36377093&rft_els_id=S0167814022045212&rfr_iscdi=true