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
Published online Feb 22, 2019. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v7.i2.51
Table 1 Quality assessment of the included studies
Study | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns | ||||||
Patient selection | Index test | Reference standard | Flow and timing | Patient selection | Index test | Reference standard | ||
Iwamoto et al[29], 2010 | L | U | H | L | L | L | L | |
Piludu et al[30], 2015 | L | U | U | L | L | L | L | |
Kalpathy-Cramer et al[31], 2017 | L | U | U | L | L | L | L | |
O’Neill et al[32], 2016 | L | U | H | L | L | L | L | |
Schmainda et al[4], 2014 | L | U | U | L | L | L | L | |
Hilario et al[33], 2016 | L | U | U | L | L | L | L |
Table 2 The basic characteristics of the included studies
Studies | Country | Patients, n | Median age | Study design | Imaging modality | Imaging biomarkers | MR scanner tesla | Anti-angiogenic treatment | Clinical question | Standard reference | TP | FP | FN | TN |
Iwamoto et al[29], 2010 | United States | 11 | 53 (29-73) | Pro-spective | DSC, DCE | Ktrans, rCBV | NR | Pazopanib | DSC and DCE vs response | Macdonald criteria RANO criteria | 1 | 0 | 6 | 4 |
Piludu et al[30], 2015 | Germany | 27 | 54 (33-77) | Pro-spective | DCE | nIAUGC, Ktrans | 3.0 T | Bevacizumab | DCE vs response | RANO criteria | 6 | 0 | 5 | 16 |
Kalpathy-Cramer et al[31], 2017 | United States | 10 | 62 (51-74) | Pro-spective | DSC, DCE | Ktrans, rCBV, rCBF | 3.0 T | Tivozanib | DSC and DCE vs response | RANO criteria | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 |
O’Neill et al[32], 2016 | United States | 12 | NR | Pro-spective | DCE | Ktrans, Ve | 1.5 T | VEGF Trap | DCE vs response | Macdonald criteria | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
Schmainda et al[4], 2014 | United States | 36 | 34 (30-68) | Retro-spective | DSC | rCBV, stdrCBV | 1.5 T or 3.0 T | Bevacizumab | DSC vs response | Macdonald criteria RANO criteria | 6 | 0 | 0 | 30 |
Hilario et al[33], 2016 | Spain | 24 | 52.5 (31-74) | Retro-spective | DSC | Leakage volume (CBV-LCCBV) | 1.5 T | Bevacizumab | DSC vs response | RANO criteria | 14 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
Table 3 Clinical responses of gliomas to antiangiogenic treatments
Study | Patient, n | RANO criteria | Macdonald criteria | ||||||
Responders | Non-responders | Responders | Non-responders | ||||||
CR | PR | SD | PD | CR | PR | SD | PD | ||
O’Neill et al[32], 2016 | 12 | - | - | - | - | 0 | 1 | 0 | 11 |
Piludu et al[30], 2015 | 27 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 16 | - | - | - | - |
Schmainda et al[4], 2014 | 36 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 30 | - | - | - | - |
Iwamoto et al[29], 2010 | 11 | - | - | - | - | 0 | 1 | 6 | 4 |
Hilario et al[33], 2016 | 24 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 10 | - | - | - | - |
Kalpathy-Cramer et al[31], 2017 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | - | - | - | - |
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
Study | TP | FP | FN | TN | Sensitivity (95%CI) | Specificity (95%CI) | LR+ (95%CI) | LR- (95%CI) | DOR (95%CI) |
Iwamoto et al[29], 2010 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 0.2 (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], 2015 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 16 | 0.55 (0.23-0.83) | 1 (0.79-1) | 18.42 (1.14-296.83) | 0.47 (0.25-0.880 | 39 (1.88-810.44) |
Kalpathy-Cramer et al[31], 2017 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 0.2 (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], 2016 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 1 (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], 2014 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 1 (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], 2016 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1 (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 results | 29 | 1 | 13 | 77 | 0.69 (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 test | I2 = 81.30%, P = 0.0001 | I2 = 12.2%, P = 0.3369 | I2 = 19.1%, P = 0.2892 | I2 = 81.5%, P = 0.0001 | I2 = 53.5%, P = 0.0563 |
- Citation: Kasenene A, Baidya A, Shams S, Xu HB. Evaluation of tumor response to antiangiogenic therapy in patients with recurrent gliomas using contrast-enhanced perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging techniques: A meta-analysis. World J Meta-Anal 2019; 7(2): 51-65
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/full/v7/i2/51.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v7.i2.51