Abrigo Jill M, Fountain Daniel M, Provenzale James M, Law Eric K, Kwong Joey Sw, Hart Michael G, Tam Wilson Wai San
Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, 30 Ngan Shing St, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 22;1(1):CD011551. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011551.pub2.
Gliomas are the most common primary brain tumour. They are graded using the WHO classification system, with Grade II-IV astrocytomas, oligodendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas. Low-grade gliomas (LGGs) are WHO Grade II infiltrative brain tumours that typically appear solid and non-enhancing on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. People with LGG often have little or no neurologic deficit, so may opt for a watch-and-wait-approach over surgical resection, radiotherapy or both, as surgery can result in early neurologic disability. Occasionally, high-grade gliomas (HGGs, WHO Grade III and IV) may have the same MRI appearance as LGGs. Taking a watch-and-wait approach could be detrimental for the patient if the tumour progresses quickly. Advanced imaging techniques are increasingly used in clinical practice to predict the grade of the tumour and to aid clinical decision of when to intervene surgically. One such advanced imaging technique is magnetic resonance (MR) perfusion, which detects abnormal haemodynamic changes related to increased angiogenesis and vascular permeability, or "leakiness" that occur with aggressive tumour histology. These are reflected by changes in cerebral blood volume (CBV) expressed as rCBV (ratio of tumoural CBV to normal appearing white matter CBV) and permeability, measured by K.
To determine the diagnostic test accuracy of MR perfusion for identifying patients with primary solid and non-enhancing LGGs (WHO Grade II) at first presentation in children and adults. In performing the quantitative analysis for this review, patients with LGGs were considered disease positive while patients with HGGs were considered disease negative.To determine what clinical features and methodological features affect the accuracy of MR perfusion.
Our search strategy used two concepts: (1) glioma and the various histologies of interest, and (2) MR perfusion. We used structured search strategies appropriate for each database searched, which included: MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), and Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index). The most recent search for this review was run on 9 November 2016.We also identified 'grey literature' from online records of conference proceedings from the American College of Radiology, European Society of Radiology, American Society of Neuroradiology and European Society of Neuroradiology in the last 20 years.
The titles and abstracts from the search results were screened to obtain full-text articles for inclusion or exclusion. We contacted authors to clarify or obtain missing/unpublished data.We included cross-sectional studies that performed dynamic susceptibility (DSC) or dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR perfusion or both of untreated LGGs and HGGs, and where rCBV and/or K values were reported. We selected participants with solid and non-enhancing gliomas who underwent MR perfusion within two months prior to histological confirmation. We excluded studies on participants who received radiation or chemotherapy before MR perfusion, or those without histologic confirmation.
Two review authors extracted information on study characteristics and data, and assessed the methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We present a summary of the study characteristics and QUADAS-2 results, and rate studies as good quality when they have low risk of bias in the domains of reference standard of tissue diagnosis and flow and timing between MR perfusion and tissue diagnosis.In the quantitative analysis, LGGs were considered disease positive, while HGGs were disease negative. The sensitivity refers to the proportion of LGGs detected by MR perfusion, and specificity as the proportion of detected HGGs. We constructed two-by-two tables with true positives and false negatives as the number of correctly and incorrectly diagnosed LGG, respectively, while true negatives and false positives are the number of correctly and incorrectly diagnosed HGG, respectively.Meta-analysis was performed on studies with two-by-two tables, with further sensitivity analysis using good quality studies. Limited data precluded regression analysis to explore heterogeneity but subgroup analysis was performed on tumour histology groups.
Seven studies with small sample sizes (4 to 48) met our inclusion criteria. These were mostly conducted in university hospitals and mostly recruited adult patients. All studies performed DSC MR perfusion and described heterogeneous acquisition and post-processing methods. Only one study performed DCE MR perfusion, precluding quantitative analysis.Using patient-level data allowed selection of individual participants relevant to the review, with generally low risks of bias for the participant selection, reference standard and flow and timing domains. Most studies did not use a pre-specified threshold, which was considered a significant source of bias, however this did not affect quantitative analysis as we adopted a common rCBV threshold of 1.75 for the review. Concerns regarding applicability were low.From published and unpublished data, 115 participants were selected and included in the meta-analysis. Average rCBV (range) of 83 LGGs and 32 HGGs were 1.29 (0.01 to 5.10) and 1.89 (0.30 to 6.51), respectively. Using the widely accepted rCBV threshold of <1.75 to differentiate LGG from HGG, the summary sensitivity/specificity estimates were 0.83 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.93)/0.48 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.90). Sensitivity analysis using five good quality studies yielded sensitivity/specificity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.91)/0.67 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.98). Subgroup analysis for tumour histology showed sensitivity/specificity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99)/0.42 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.95) in astrocytomas (6 studies, 55 participants) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.93)/0.53 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.88) in oligodendrogliomas+oligoastrocytomas (6 studies, 56 participants). Data were too sparse to investigate any differences across subgroups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence precludes reliable estimation of the performance of DSC MR perfusion-derived rCBV for the identification of grade in untreated solid and non-enhancing LGG from that of HGG. Pooled data yielded a wide range of estimates for both sensitivity (range 66% to 93% for detection of LGGs) and specificity (range 9% to 90% for detection of HGGs). Other clinical and methodological features affecting accuracy of the technique could not be determined from the limited data. A larger sample size of both LGG and HGG, preferably using a standardised scanning approach and with an updated reference standard incorporating molecular profiles, is required for a definite conclusion.
胶质瘤是最常见的原发性脑肿瘤。它们采用世界卫生组织(WHO)分类系统进行分级,包括II - IV级星形细胞瘤、少突胶质细胞瘤和少突星形细胞瘤。低级别胶质瘤(LGGs)是WHO II级浸润性脑肿瘤,在磁共振成像(MRI)扫描中通常表现为实性且无强化。LGG患者通常很少或没有神经功能缺损,因此可能会选择观察等待策略,而非手术切除、放疗或两者皆用,因为手术可能导致早期神经功能残疾。偶尔,高级别胶质瘤(HGGs,WHO III级和IV级)可能与LGGs具有相同的MRI表现。如果肿瘤进展迅速,采取观察等待策略可能对患者有害。先进的成像技术在临床实践中越来越多地用于预测肿瘤分级,并辅助决定何时进行手术干预。其中一种先进的成像技术是磁共振(MR)灌注,它可检测与血管生成增加和血管通透性增加相关的异常血流动力学变化,即侵袭性肿瘤组织学中出现的“渗漏”。这些变化通过脑血容量(CBV)的变化反映为相对脑血容量(rCBV,肿瘤CBV与正常白质CBV的比值)以及通过K测量的通透性。
确定MR灌注在初次诊断时鉴别儿童和成人原发性实性且无强化的LGGs(WHO II级)患者的诊断测试准确性。在本次综述的定量分析中,LGG患者被视为疾病阳性,而HGG患者被视为疾病阴性。确定哪些临床特征和方法学特征会影响MR灌注的准确性。
我们的检索策略使用了两个概念:(1)胶质瘤及各种感兴趣的组织学类型,以及(2)MR灌注。我们对每个检索的数据库使用了结构化检索策略,包括:MEDLINE(Ovid SP)、Embase(Ovid SP)和Web of Science核心合集(科学引文索引扩展版和会议论文引文索引)。本次综述的最新检索于2016年11月9日进行。我们还从美国放射学会、欧洲放射学会、美国神经放射学会和欧洲神经放射学会过去20年的会议记录在线记录中识别了“灰色文献”。
对检索结果的标题和摘要进行筛选,以获取纳入或排除的全文文章。我们联系作者以澄清或获取缺失/未发表的数据。我们纳入了对未经治疗的LGGs和HGGs进行动态磁敏感对比(DSC)或动态对比增强(DCE)MR灌注或两者皆用的横断面研究,且报告了rCBV和/或K值。我们选择了在组织学确认前两个月内接受MR灌注的实性且无强化的胶质瘤参与者。我们排除了在MR灌注前接受过放疗或化疗的参与者的研究,或那些没有组织学确认的研究。
两位综述作者提取了关于研究特征和数据的信息,并使用诊断准确性研究质量评估(QUADAS - 2)工具评估方法学质量。我们呈现了研究特征和QUADAS - 2结果的总结,并将在组织诊断参考标准以及MR灌注与组织诊断之间的流程和时间领域中偏倚风险较低的研究评为高质量。在定量分析中,LGGs被视为疾病阳性,而HGGs为疾病阴性。敏感性指MR灌注检测到的LGGs的比例,特异性指检测到的HGGs的比例。我们构建了二乘二表,真阳性和假阴性分别为正确和错误诊断的LGG的数量,而真阴性和假阳性分别为正确和错误诊断的HGG的数量。对具有二乘二表的研究进行荟萃分析,并使用高质量研究进行进一步的敏感性分析。有限的数据排除了进行回归分析以探索异质性的可能性,但对肿瘤组织学组进行了亚组分析。
七项样本量较小(4至48例)的研究符合我们的纳入标准。这些研究大多在大学医院进行,且大多招募成年患者。所有研究均进行了DSC MR灌注,并描述了异质性采集和后处理方法。只有一项研究进行了DCE MR灌注,无法进行定量分析。使用患者层面的数据允许选择与综述相关的个体参与者,在参与者选择、参考标准以及流程和时间领域的偏倚风险通常较低。大多数研究未使用预先设定的阈值,这被认为是一个重要的偏倚来源,然而这并未影响定量分析,因为我们在综述中采用了1.75的常见rCBV阈值。关于适用性的担忧较低。从已发表和未发表的数据中,选择了115名参与者纳入荟萃分析。83例LGGs和32例HGGs的平均rCBV(范围)分别为1.29(0.01至5.10)和1.89(0.30至6.51)。使用广泛接受的rCBV阈值<1.75来区分LGG和HGG,汇总敏感性/特异性估计值为0.83(95%CI 0.66至0.93)/0.48(95%CI 0.09至0.90)。使用五项高质量研究进行的敏感性分析得出敏感性/特异性为0.80(95%CI 0.61至0.91)/0.67(95%CI 0.07至0.98)。肿瘤组织学的亚组分析显示,星形细胞瘤(6项研究,55名参与者)的敏感性/特异性为0.92(95%CI 0.55至0.99)/0.42(95%CI 0.02至0.95),少突胶质细胞瘤+少突星形细胞瘤(6项研究,56名参与者)的敏感性/特异性为0.77(95%CI 0.46至0.93)/0.53(95%CI 0.14至0.88)。数据过于稀疏,无法研究亚组间的任何差异。
现有有限证据无法可靠估计DSC MR灌注衍生的rCBV在鉴别未经治疗的实性且无强化的LGG和HGG分级方面的性能。汇总数据得出的敏感性(检测LGGs的范围为66%至93%)和特异性(检测HGGs的范围为9%至90%)估计值范围广泛。从有限的数据中无法确定影响该技术准确性的其他临床和方法学特征。需要更大样本量的LGG和HGG,最好采用标准化扫描方法,并结合包含分子谱的更新参考标准,才能得出明确结论。