Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38714545›Full record

ArticleNeuroradiology2024

How to evaluate perfusion imaging in post-treatment glioma: a comparison of three different analysis methods.

Siem D A Herings, Rik van den Elshout, Rebecca de Wit, Manoj Mannil, Cécile Ravesloot, Tom W J Scheenen, Anne Arens, Anja van der Kolk, Frederick J A Meijer, Dylan J H A Henssen

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  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

10 authors.

Siem D A HeringsDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Siem.Herings@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4791-5681
Rik van den ElshoutDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rebecca de WitDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Manoj MannilUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, E48149, Muenster, Germany.
Cécile RaveslootDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tom W J ScheenenDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Anne ArensDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Anja van der KolkDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Frederick J A MeijerDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Dylan J H A HenssenDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion weighted (PW)-MRI can aid in differentiating treatment related abnormalities (TRA) from tumor progression (TP) in post-treatment glioma patients. Common methods, like the 'hot spot', or visual approach suffer from oversimplification and subjectivity. Using perfusion of the complete lesion potentially offers an objective and accurate alternative. This study aims to compare the diagnostic value and assess the subjectivity of these techniques.

methods50 Glioma patients with enhancing lesions post-surgery and chemo-radiotherapy were retrospectively included. Outcome was determined by clinical/radiological follow-up or biopsy. Imaging analysis used the 'hot spot', volume of interest (VOI) and visual approach. Diagnostic accuracy was compared using receiving operator characteristics (ROC) curves for the VOI and 'hot spot' approach, visual assessment was analysed with contingency tables. Inter-operator agreement was determined with Cohens kappa and intra-class coefficient (ICC).

results29 Patients suffered from TP, 21 had TRA. The visual assessment showed poor to substantial inter-operator agreement (κ = -0.72 - 0.68). Reliability of the 'hot spot' placement was excellent (ICC = 0.89), while reference placement was variable (ICC = 0.54). The area under the ROC (AUROC) of the mean- and maximum relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) (VOI-analysis) were 0.82 and 0.72, while the rCBV-ratio ('hot spot' analysis) was 0.69. The VOI-analysis had a more balanced sensitivity and specificity compared to visual assessment.

conclusionsVOI analysis of DSC PW-MRI data holds greater diagnostic accuracy in single-moment differentiation of TP and TRA than 'hot spot' or visual analysis. This study underlines the subjectivity of visual placement and assessment.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGliomaAdultAgedContrast MediaDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance AngiographyMaleMiddle AgedPerfusion ImagingReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityContrast MediaDynamic susceptibility contrastGliomaPerfusion weighted magnetic resonance imagingTreatment-related abnormalityTumor progressionVolume of interest

Identifiers

PMID38714545
PMCPMC11246270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.