Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28627984›Full record

ArticleThe neuroradiology journal2017

Diagnostic accuracy of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and perfusion-weighted imaging in brain gliomas follow-up: a single institutional experience.

Monica Anselmi, Alessia Catalucci, Valentina Felli, Valentina Vellucci, Alessandra Di Sibio, Giovanni Luca Gravina, Mario Di Staso, Ernesto Di Cesare, Carlo Masciocchi

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The neuroradiology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Monica Anselmi1 Department of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, San Salvatore Hospital of L'Aquila, Italy.
Alessia Catalucci2 Division of Neuroradiology, Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy.
Valentina Felli3 Division of Radiology, Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy.
Valentina Vellucci3 Division of Radiology, Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy.
Alessandra Di Sibio3 Division of Radiology, Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy.
Giovanni Luca Gravina2 Division of Neuroradiology, Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy.
Mario Di Staso4 Department of Radiotherapy, Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy.
Ernesto Di Cesare3 Division of Radiology, Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy.
Carlo Masciocchi1 Department of Biotechnology and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, San Salvatore Hospital of L'Aquila, Italy.
University of L'Aquila · ITSan Salvatore Hospital · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate whether proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are able to increase diagnostic accuracy in the follow-up of brain gliomas, identifying the progression of disease before it becomes evident in the standard MRI; also to evaluate which of the two techniques has the best diagnostic accuracy. Methods Eighty-three patients with cerebral glioma (50 high-grade gliomas (HGGs), 33 low-grade gliomas (LGGs)) were retrospectively enrolled. All patients underwent standard MRI, H spectroscopic and perfusion echo-planar imaging MRI. For spectroscopy variations of choline/creatine, choline/N-acetyl-aspartate ratio, and lipids and lactates peak were considered. For perfusion 2.0 was considered the cerebral blood volume cut-off for progression. The combination of functional parameters gave a multiparametric score (0-2) to predict outcome. Diagnostic performance was determined by the receiver operating characteristic curve, with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values. Results In patients with LGGs a combined score of at least 1 was the best predictor for progression (odds ratio (OR) 3.91) with 8.4 months median anticipation of diagnosis compared to standard MRI. The individual advanced magnetic resonance technique did not show a diagnostic accuracy comparable to the combination of the two. Overall diagnostic accuracy area under the curve (AUC) was 0.881. In patients with HGGs the multiparametric score did not improve diagnostic accuracy significantly. Perfusion MRI was the best predictor of progression (OR 3.65), with 6.7 months median anticipation of diagnosis. Overall diagnostic accuracy AUC was 0.897. Then spectroscopy and perfusion MRI are able to identify tumour progression during follow-up earlier than standard MRI. Conclusion In patients with LGGs the combination of the functional parameters seems to be the best method for diagnosis of progression. In patients with HGGs perfusion is the best diagnostic method.

Indexed as

AdultBiomarkers, TumorBrain NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionEcho-Planar ImagingFemaleGliomaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingPredictive Value of TestsProton Magnetic Resonance SpectroscopyRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, Tumor1H-MRSgliomaMRIperfusion MRIspectroscopy

Identifiers

PMID28627984
PMCPMC5480793
OpenAlexW2591039357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.