Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating glioma recurrence from posttreatment-related changes: a meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most commonly used imaging method to evaluate glioma recurrence. However, conventional MRI has difficulty distinguishing glioma accurately. This study aimed to explore the value of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in evaluating glioma recurrence and post-treatment-related changes.

Research design and methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science and Technology Journal Database were extensively searched in accordance with inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria to obtain appropriate included studies. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Combined sensitivity and specificity and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

Results

Seventeen high-quality studies were included. The combined sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76–0.87), the specificity was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.76–0.89), the positive likelihood ratio was 4.9 (95% CI: 3.2–7.5), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.21 (95% CI: 0.15–0.30), the diagnostic odds ratio was 23 (95%: CI 11–48), and the area under the SROC was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87–0.92).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggests that DWI has high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in differentiating glioma recurrence.

KEYWORDS:

• Magnetic resonance imaging
• diffusion weighted imaging
• meta-analysis
• glioma
• diagnosis

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank American Journal Experts for their assistance with language editing.

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Ethical approval

All analyses in the current study were aligned with established medical ethics guidelines.

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Supplementary materials

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Data availability statement

All the data generated or analyzed in this study are included in this published article.

Additional information

Funding

The authors have no funding to report.