Diagnostic accuracy of MRI techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with brain metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Radiotherapy and oncology 2022-12, Vol.177, p.121-133
• Main Authors: Teunissen, Wouter H.T., Govaerts, Chris W., Kramer, Miranda C.A., Labrecque, Jeremy A., Smits, Marion, Dirven, Linda, van der Hoorn, Anouk
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Brain metastasis; Brain Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Brain Neoplasms - pathology; Brain Neoplasms - therapy; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Meta-analysis; MRI; Pseudoprogression; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Treatment response
• ISSN: 0167-8140; 1879-0887
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.10.026

•MRI is the cornerstone of brain metastasis follow-up after treatment.•DWI and PWI combined shows the best diagnostic accuracy during response evaluation.•External validation of DSC perfusion shows an optimal rCBV cut-off value of 2.1. Treatment response assessment in patients with brain metastasis uses contrast enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Advanced MRI techniques have been studied, but the diagnostic accuracy is not well known. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available MRI techniques for treatment response. A systematic literature search was done. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random effects model. An independent cohort was used for DSC perfusion external validation of diagnostic accuracy. Anatomical MRI (16 studies, 726 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 76%. DCE perfusion (4 studies, 114 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 92%. DSC perfusion (12 studies, 418 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity was 83% with a specificity of 78%. Diffusion weighted imaging (7 studies, 288 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 79%. MRS (4 studies, 54 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 78%. Combined techniques (6 studies, 375 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 88%. External validation of DSC showed a lower sensitivity and a higher specificity for the reported cut-off values included in this metaanalysis. A combination of techniques shows the highest diagnostic accuracy differentiating tumor progression from treatment induced abnormalities. External validation of imaging results is important to better define the reliability of imaging results with the different techniques.