Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Meta-Anal. Feb 22, 2019; 7(2): 51-65
Published online Feb 22, 2019. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v7.i2.51
Table 1 Quality assessment of the included studies
StudyRisk of bias
Applicability concerns
Patient selectionIndex testReference standardFlow and timingPatient selectionIndex testReference standard
Iwamoto et al[29], 2010LUHLLLL
Piludu et al[30], 2015LUULLLL
Kalpathy-Cramer et al[31], 2017LUULLLL
O’Neill et al[32], 2016LUHLLLL
Schmainda et al[4], 2014LUULLLL
Hilario et al[33], 2016LUULLLL
Table 2 The basic characteristics of the included studies
StudiesCountryPatients, nMedian ageStudy designImaging modalityImaging biomarkersMR scanner teslaAnti-angiogenic treatmentClinical questionStandard referenceTPFPFNTN
Iwamoto et al[29], 2010United States1153 (29-73)Pro-spectiveDSC, DCEKtrans, rCBVNRPazopanibDSC and DCE vs responseMacdonald criteria RANO criteria1064
Piludu et al[30], 2015Germany2754 (33-77)Pro-spectiveDCEnIAUGC, Ktrans3.0 TBevacizumabDCE vs responseRANO criteria60516
Kalpathy-Cramer et al[31], 2017United States1062 (51-74)Pro-spectiveDSC, DCEKtrans, rCBV, rCBF3.0 TTivozanibDSC and DCE vs responseRANO criteria1144
O’Neill et al[32], 2016United States12NRPro-spectiveDCEKtrans, Ve1.5 TVEGF TrapDCE vs responseMacdonald criteria10011
Schmainda et al[4], 2014United States3634 (30-68)Retro-spectiveDSCrCBV, stdrCBV1.5 T or 3.0 TBevacizumabDSC vs responseMacdonald criteria RANO criteria60030
Hilario et al[33], 2016Spain2452.5 (31-74)Retro-spectiveDSCLeakage volume (CBV-LCCBV)1.5 TBevacizumabDSC vs responseRANO criteria140010
Table 3 Clinical responses of gliomas to antiangiogenic treatments
StudyPatient, nRANO criteria
Macdonald criteria
Responders
Non-responders
Responders
Non-responders
CRPRSDPDCRPRSDPD
O’Neill et al[32], 201612----01011
Piludu et al[30], 20152706516----
Schmainda et al[4], 20143606030----
Iwamoto et al[29], 201011----0164
Hilario et al[33], 201624014010----
Kalpathy-Cramer et al[31], 2017101144----
Table 4 True positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative as well as the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio for the meta-analysis of antiangiogenic treatment evaluation
StudyTPFPFNTNSensitivity (95%CI)Specificity (95%CI)LR+ (95%CI)LR- (95%CI)DOR (95%CI)
Iwamoto et al[29], 201010460.2 (0.01-0.72)1 (0.54-1)3.5 (0.17-70.94)0.81 (0.49-1.340)4.33 (0.14-132.32)
Piludu et al[30], 2015605160.55 (0.23-0.83)1 (0.79-1)18.42 (1.14-296.83)0.47 (0.25-0.88039 (1.88-810.44)
Kalpathy-Cramer et al[31], 201711440.2 (0.01-0.72)0.8 (0.28-0.99)1 (0.08-11.93)1 (0.54-1.86)1 (0.05-22.18)
O’Neill et al[32], 2016100111 (0.03-1)1 (0.72-1)18 (1.06-304.71)0.26 (0.02-2.89)69 (0.96-4951.23)
Schmainda et al[4], 2014600301 (0.54-1)1 (0.88-1)57.57 (3.65-906.93)0.07 (0.01-1.05)793 (14.37-43,746.61)
Hilario et al[33], 20161400101 (0.77-1)1 (0.69-1)21.27 (1.42-319.53)0.03 (0-0.53)609 (911.16-33,236.62)
Pooled results29113770.69 (0.53-0.82)0.99 (0.93-1)12.84 (4.54-36.28)0.35 (0.22-0.53)24.44 (7.19-83.06)
Heterogeneity testI2 = 81.30%, P = 0.0001I2 = 12.2%, P = 0.3369I2 = 19.1%, P = 0.2892I2 = 81.5%, P = 0.0001I2 = 53.5%, P = 0.0563