Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29619517›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2018

Perfusion MRI as a diagnostic biomarker for differentiating glioma from brain metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chong Hyun Suh, Ho Sung Kim, Seung Chai Jung, Choong Gon Choi, Sang Joon Kim

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Imaging in Neuro-oncology.Seminars in neurology · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Chong Hyun SuhDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 138-736, Republic of Korea.
Ho Sung KimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 138-736, Republic of Korea. radhskim@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9477-7421
Seung Chai JungDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 138-736, Republic of Korea.
Choong Gon ChoiDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 138-736, Republic of Korea.
Sang Joon KimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 138-736, Republic of Korea.

Funding

National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea 1720030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDifferentiation of glioma from brain metastasis is clinically crucial because it affects the clinical outcome of patients and alters patient management. Here, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the currently available data on perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiating glioma from brain metastasis, assessing MRI protocols and parameters.

methodsA computerised search of Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed up to 3 October 2017, to find studies on the diagnostic performance of perfusion MRI for differentiating glioma from brain metastasis. Pooled summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained using hierarchical logistic regression modelling. We conducted meta-regression and subgroup analyses to explain the effects of the study heterogeneity.

resultsEighteen studies with 900 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90% (95% CI, 84-94%) and 91% (95% CI, 84-95%), respectively. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98). The meta-regression showed that the percentage of glioma in the study population and the study design were significant factors affecting study heterogeneity. In a subgroup analysis including patients with glioblastoma only, the pooled sensitivity was 92% (95% CI, 84-97%) and the pooled specificity was 94% (95% CI, 85-98%).

conclusionsAlthough various perfusion MRI techniques were used, the current evidence supports the use of perfusion MRI to differentiate glioma from brain metastasis. In particular, perfusion MRI showed excellent diagnostic performance for differentiating glioblastoma from brain metastasis. KEY POINTS: • Perfusion MRI shows high diagnostic performance for differentiating glioma from brain metastasis. • The pooled sensitivity was 90% and pooled specificity was 91%. • Peritumoral rCBV derived from DSC is a relatively well-validated.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBrainBrain NeoplasmsDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleGliomaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkersGlioblastomaGliomaMagnetic resonance imagingMetastasisPerfusion

Identifiers

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.