Abstract
BackgroundThe diagnostic performance of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MR perfusion in discriminating treatment‐related changes from recurrence in irradiated brain metastases is currently not completely clear.PurposeTo systematically review the accuracy of DSC MR perfusion in diagnosing recurrent brain metastases after radiotherapy.Study TypeSystematic review and meta‐analysis.SubjectsMEDLINE and Embase were searched for original studies investigating the accuracy of DSC MR perfusion in diagnosing recurrent brain metastases after radiotherapy. Ten studies, comprising a total of more than 271 metastases, were included.Field Strength/Sequence1.5T or 3.0T, DSC MR perfusion.AssessmentQuality assessment was performed according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2 tool.Statistical TestsSensitivity and specificity were pooled with a bivariate random‐effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by a chi‐squared test. Potential sources for heterogeneity were explored by subgroup analyses.ResultsIn seven studies the diagnostic criterion was not prespecified. In eight studies it was unclear whether the reference standard was interpreted blindly. In seven studies it was unclear whether DSC MR perfusion results influenced which reference standard was used. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 81.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70.6%, 89.1%) and 80.6% (95% CI: 64.2%, 90.6%), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity in both sensitivity (P = 0.005) and specificity (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in relative diagnostic odds ratio according to publication year, country of origin, study size, and DSC MR perfusion interpretation method (visual analysis of cerebral blood volume [CBV] map vs. relative CBV measurement) (P > 0.2). Due to insufficiently detailed reporting, it was not possible to investigate the influence of primary tumor origin on accuracy.Data ConclusionOur results suggest that the accuracy of DSC MR perfusion in diagnosing recurrent brain metastases after radiotherapy is fairly high. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because of methodological quality concerns and heterogeneity between studies. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:524–534.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
