Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Differentiating High-Grade Glioma from Solitary Brain Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

References

1. 1.↵
   2. O'Neill BP,
   3. Buckner JC,
   4. Coffey RJ, et al

   . Brain metastatic lesions. Mayo Clin Proc 1994;69:1062–68 doi:10.1016/S0025-6196(12)61374-3 pmid:7967760

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Giese A,
   3. Westphal M

   . Treatment of malignant glioma: a problem beyond the margins of resection. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2001;127:217–25 doi:10.1007/s004320000188 pmid:11315255

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Bauer AH,
   3. Erly W,
   4. Moser FG, et al

   . Differentiation of solitary brain metastasis from glioblastoma multiforme: a predictive multiparametric approach using combined MR diffusion and perfusion. Neuroradiology 2015;57:697–703 doi:10.1007/s00234-015-1524-6 pmid:25845813

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Bette S,
   3. Huber T,
   4. Wiestler B, et al

   . Analysis of fractional anisotropy facilitates differentiation of glioblastoma and brain metastases in a clinical setting. Eur J Radiol 2016;85:2182–87 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.002 pmid:27842664

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Byrnes TJ,
   3. Barrick TR,
   4. Bell BA, et al

   . Diffusion tensor imaging discriminates between glioblastoma and cerebral metastases in vivo. NMR Biomed 2011;24:54–60 doi:10.1002/nbm.1555 pmid:20665905

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. Caravan I,
   3. Ciortea CA,
   4. Contis A, et al

   . Diagnostic value of apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating between high-grade gliomas and brain metastases. Acta Radiol 2017;59:599–605 doi:10.1177/0284185117727787 pmid:28835111

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Chen R,
   3. Wang S,
   4. Poptani H, et al

   . A Bayesian diagnostic system to differentiate glioblastomas from solitary brain metastases. Neuroradiol J 2013;26:175–83 doi:10.1177/197140091302600207 pmid:23859240

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Han C,
   3. Huang S,
   4. Guo J, et al

   . Use of a high b-value for diffusion weighted imaging of peritumoral regions to differentiate high-grade gliomas and solitary metastases. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42:80–86 doi:10.1002/jmri.24747 pmid:25223489

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Holly KS,
   3. Barker BJ,
   4. Murcia D, et al

   . High-grade gliomas exhibit higher peritumoral fractional anisotropy and lower mean diffusivity than intracranial metastases. Front Surg 2017;4:18 doi:10.3389/fsurg.2017.00018 pmid:28443285

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Lee EJ,
    3. terBrugge K,
    4. Mikulis D, et al

    . Diagnostic value of peritumoral minimum apparent diffusion coefficient for differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme from solitary metastatic lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:71–76 doi:10.2214/AJR.10.4752 pmid:21178049

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Lemercier P,
    3. Paz Maya S,
    4. Patrie JT, et al

    . Gradient of apparent diffusion coefficient values in peritumoral edema helps in differentiation of glioblastoma from solitary metastatic lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203:163–69 doi:10.2214/AJR.13.11186 pmid:24951211

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Miquelini LA,
    3. Pérez Akly MS,
    4. Funes JA, et al

    . Usefulness of the apparent diffusion coefficient for the evaluation of the white matter to differentiate between glioblastoma and brain metastases. Radiologia 2016;58:207–13 doi:10.1016/j.rx.2015.10.004 pmid:26655126

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Server A,
    3. Kulle B,
    4. Maehlen J, et al

    . Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficients in the characterization of brain tumors and associated peritumoral edema. Acta Radiol 2009;50:682–89 doi:10.1080/02841850902933123 pmid:19449234

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Tan Y,
    3. Wang XC,
    4. Zhang H, et al

    . Differentiation of high-grade-astrocytomas from solitary-brain-metastases: comparing diffusion kurtosis imaging and diffusion tensor imaging. Eur J Radiol 2015;84:2618–24 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.10.007 pmid:26482747

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Wang S,
    3. Kim SJ,
    4. Poptani H, et al

    . Diagnostic utility of diffusion tensor imaging in differentiating glioblastomas from brain metastases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:928–34 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3871 pmid:24503556

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Zhao J,
    3. Yang ZY,
    4. Luo BN, et al

    . Quantitative evaluation of diffusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR in tumor parenchyma and peritumoral area for distinction of brain tumors. PLoS One 2015;10:e0138573 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138573 pmid:26384329

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Watanabe M,
    3. Tanaka R,
    4. Takeda N

    . Magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology of cerebral gliomas. Neuroradiology 1992;34:463–69 doi:10.1007/BF00598951 pmid:1436452

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Strugar J,
    3. Rothbart D,
    4. Harrington W, et al

    . Vascular permeability factor in brain metastases: correlation with vasogenic brain edema and tumor angiogenesis. J Neurosurg 1994;81:560–66 doi:10.3171/jns.1994.81.4.0560 pmid:7523634

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Zamecnik J

    . The extracellular space and matrix of gliomas. Acta Neuropathol 2005;110:435–42 doi:10.1007/s00401-005-1078-5 pmid:16175354

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Vargová L,
    3. Homola A,
    4. Zámecník J, et al

    . Diffusion parameters of the extracellular space in human gliomas. Glia 2003;42:77–88 doi:10.1002/glia.10204 pmid:12594739

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Liberati A,
    3. Altman DG,
    4. Tetzlaff J, et al

    . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:W65–94 pmid:19622512

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Whiting PF,
    3. Rutjes AW,
    4. Westwood ME, et al

    ; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 pmid:22007046

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Suh CH,
    3. Park SH

    . Successful publication of systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:5–6 doi:10.3348/kjr.2016.17.1.5 pmid:26798211

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Kim KW,
    3. Lee J,
    4. Choi SH, et al

    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers, Part I: general guidance and tips. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:1175–87 doi:10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1175 pmid:26576106

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Lee J,
    3. Kim KW,
    4. Choi SH, et al

    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers, Part II: statistical methods of meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:1188–96 doi:10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1188 pmid:26576107

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Deeks JJ,
    3. Macaskill P,
    4. Irwig L

    . The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882–93 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 pmid:16085191

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    1. Higgins J,
    2. Green S

    , eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed October 2, 2017
28. 28.↵
    2. Devillé WL,
    3. Buntinx F,
    4. Bouter LM, et al

    . Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:9 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-2-9 pmid:12097142

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Calli C,
    3. Kitis O,
    4. Yunten N, et al

    . Perfusion and diffusion MR imaging in enhancing malignant cerebral tumors. Eur J Radiol 2006;58:394–403 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.12.032 pmid:16527438

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Chiang IC,
    3. Kuo YT,
    4. Lu CY, et al

    . Distinction between high-grade gliomas and solitary metastases using peritumoral 3-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion, and perfusion imagings. Neuroradiology 2004;46:619–27 pmid:15243726

    PubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    2. Darwiesh AM,
    3. Maboud NM,
    4. Khalil AM, et al

    . Role of magnetic resonance spectroscopy & diffusion weighted imaging in differentiation of supratentorial brain tumors. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 2016;47:1037–42 doi:10.1016/j.ejrnm.2016.05.005

    CrossRef
32. 32.↵
    2. Guzman R,
    3. Altrichter S,
    4. El-Koussy M, et al

    . Contribution of the apparent diffusion coefficient in perilesional edema for the assessment of brain tumors. J Neuroradiol 2008;35:224–29 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2008.02.003 pmid:18420272

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Kitis O,
    3. Altay H,
    4. Calli C, et al

    . Minimum apparent diffusion coefficients in the evaluation of brain tumors. Eur J Radiol 2005;55:393–400 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.02.004 pmid:16129247

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Lu S,
    3. Ahn D,
    4. Johnson G, et al

    . Diffusion-tensor MR imaging of intracranial neoplasia and associated peritumoral edema: introduction of the tumor infiltration index. Radiology 2004;232:221–28 doi:10.1148/radiol.2321030653 pmid:15220505

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    2. Papageorgiou TS,
    3. Chourmouzi D,
    4. Drevelengas A, et al

    . Diffusion tensor imaging in brain tumors: a study on gliomas and metastases. Phys Med 2015;31:767–73 doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.03.010 pmid:25866320

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Pavlisa G,
    3. Rados M,
    4. Pavlisa G, et al

    . The differences of water diffusion between brain tissue infiltrated by tumor and peritumoral vasogenic edema. Clin Imaging 2009;33:96–101 doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2008.06.035 pmid:19237051

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Shim WH,
    3. Kim HS,
    4. Choi CG, et al

    . Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion for differentiating among glioblastoma, metastasis, and lymphoma focusing on diffusion-related parameter. PLoS One 2015;10:e0134761 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134761 pmid:26225937

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Svolos P,
    3. Tsolaki E,
    4. Kapsalaki E, et al

    . Investigating brain tumor differentiation with diffusion and perfusion metrics at 3T MRI using pattern recognition techniques. Magn Reson Imaging 2013;31:1567–77 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2013.06.010 pmid:23906533

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    2. Tsougos I,
    3. Svolos P,
    4. Kousi E, et al

    . Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme from metastatic brain tumor using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion and perfusion metrics at 3 T. Cancer Imaging 2012;12:423–36 doi:10.1102/1470-7330.2012.0038 pmid:23108208

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    2. Wang W,
    3. Steward CE,
    4. Desmond PM

    . Diffusion tensor imaging in glioblastoma multiforme and brain metastases: the role of p, q, L, and fractional anisotropy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:203–08 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1303 pmid:18842762

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
41. 41.↵
    2. Bobek-Billewicz B,
    3. Stasik-Pres G,
    4. Majchrzak K, et al

    . Fibre integrity and diffusivity of the pyramidal tract and motor cortex within and adjacent to brain tumour in patients with or without neurological deficits. Folia Neuropathol 2011;49:262–70 pmid:22212916

    PubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. Bulakbasi N,
    3. Guvenc I,
    4. Onguru O, et al

    . The added value of the apparent diffusion coefficient calculation to magnetic resonance imaging in the differentiation and grading of malignant brain tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004;28:735–46 doi:10.1097/00004728-200411000-00003 pmid:15538145

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    2. Bulakbasi N,
    3. Kocaoglu M,
    4. Ors F, et al

    . Combination of single-voxel proton MR spectroscopy and apparent diffusion coefficient calculation in the evaluation of common brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:225–33 pmid:12591638

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
44. 44.↵
    2. Cho NS,
    3. Jenabi M,
    4. Arevalo-Perez J, et al

    . Diffusion tensor imaging shows corpus callosum differences between high-grade gliomas and metastases. J Neuroimaging 2018;28:199–205 doi:10.1111/jon.12478 pmid:29064137

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    2. Jones TL,
    3. Byrnes TJ,
    4. Yang G, et al

    . Brain tumor classification using the diffusion tensor image segmentation (D-SEG) technique. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:466–76 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nou159 pmid:25121771

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    2. Kolakshyapati M,
    3. Adhikari RB,
    4. Karlowee V, et al

    . Nonenhancing peritumoral hyperintense lesion on diffusion-weighted imaging in glioblastoma: a novel diagnostic and specific prognostic indicator. J Neurosurg 2018;128:667–78 doi:10.3171/2016.10.JNS161694 pmid:28362236

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    2. Zolal A,
    3. Hejcl A,
    4. Malucelli A, et al

    . Distant white-matter diffusion changes caused by tumor growth. J Neuroradiol 2013;40:71–80 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2012.05.006 pmid:23433909

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    2. Lu S,
    3. Ahn D,
    4. Johnson G, et al

    . Peritumoral diffusion tensor imaging of high-grade gliomas and metastatic brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:937–41 pmid:12748097

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
49. 49.↵
    2. Wang S,
    3. Kim S,
    4. Chawla S, et al

    . Differentiation between glioblastomas, solitary brain metastases, and primary cerebral lymphomas using diffusion tensor and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:507–14 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2333 pmid:21330399

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
50. 50.↵
    2. Wang S,
    3. Kim S,
    4. Chawla S, et al

    . Differentiation between glioblastomas and solitary brain metastases using diffusion tensor imaging. Neuroimage 2009;44:653–60 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.027 pmid:18951985

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
51. 51.↵
    2. Yang G,
    3. Jones TL,
    4. Barrick TR, et al

    . Discrimination between glioblastoma multiforme and solitary metastasis using morphological features derived from the p:q tensor decomposition of diffusion tensor imaging. NMR Biomed 2014;27:1103–11 doi:10.1002/nbm.3163 pmid:25066520

    CrossRefPubMed
52. 52.↵
    2. Yang G,
    3. Jones TL,
    4. Howe FA, et al

    . Morphometric model for discrimination between glioblastoma multiforme and solitary metastasis using three-dimensional shape analysis. Magn Reson Med 2016;75:2505–16 doi:10.1002/mrm.25845 pmid:26173745

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    2. Min ZG,
    3. Niu C,
    4. Rana N, et al

    . Differentiation of pure vasogenic edema and tumor-infiltrated edema in patients with peritumoral edema by analyzing the relationship of axial and radial diffusivities on 3.0T MRI. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2013;115:1366–70 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2012.12.031 pmid:23351840

    CrossRefPubMed
54. 54.↵
    2. Oh J,
    3. Cha S,
    4. Aiken AH, et al

    . Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficients and T2 relaxation times in characterizing contrast enhancing brain tumors and regions of peritumoral edema. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21:701–08 doi:10.1002/jmri.20335 pmid:15906339

    CrossRefPubMed
55. 55.↵
    2. van Westen D,
    3. Latt J,
    4. Englund E, et al

    . Tumor extension in high-grade gliomas assessed with diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: values and lesion-to-brain ratios of apparent diffusion coefficient and fractional anisotropy. Acta Radiol 2006;47:311–19 doi:10.1080/02841850500539058 pmid:16613314

    CrossRefPubMed
56. 56.↵
    2. Vandendries C,
    3. Ducreux D,
    4. Lacroix C, et al

    . Statistical analysis of multi-b factor diffusion weighted images can help distinguish between vasogenic and tumor-infiltrated edema. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;40:622–29 doi:10.1002/jmri.24399 pmid:24395290

    CrossRefPubMed
57. 57.↵
    2. Hoefnagels FW,
    3. De Witt Hamer P,
    4. Sanz-Arigita E, et al

    . Differentiation of edema and glioma infiltration: proposal of a DTI-based probability map. J Neurooncol 2014;120:187–98 doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1544-9 pmid:25079117

    CrossRefPubMed
58. 58.↵
    2. Rollin N,
    3. Guyotat J,
    4. Streichenberger N, et al

    . Clinical relevance of diffusion and perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in assessing intra-axial brain tumors. Neuroradiology 2006;48:150–59 doi:10.1007/s00234-005-0030-7 pmid:16470375

    CrossRefPubMed
59. 59.↵
    2. Pope WB,
    3. Mirsadraei L,
    4. Lai A, et al

    . Differential gene expression in glioblastoma defined by ADC histogram analysis: relationship to extracellular matrix molecules and survival. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1059–64 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2917 pmid:22268080

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
60. 60.↵
    2. Jiang R,
    3. Du FZ,
    4. He C, et al

    . The value of diffusion tensor imaging in differentiating high-grade gliomas from brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9:e112550 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112550 pmid:25380185

    CrossRefPubMed
61. 61.↵
    2. Mori S,
    3. Zhang J

    . Principles of diffusion tensor imaging and its applications to basic neuroscience research. Neuron 2006;51:527–39 doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.08.012 pmid:16950152

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
62. 62.↵
    1. Deeks JJ,
    2. Bossuyt PM,
    3. Gatsonis C

    , eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Version 1.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2013. http://methods.cochrane.org/sdt/handbook-dta-reviews. Accessed October 9, 2017
63. 63.↵
    2. Trikalinos TA,
    3. Balion CM,
    4. Coleman CI, et al

    . Chapter 8: meta-analysis of test performance when there is a “gold standard.” J Gen Intern Med 2012;27(Suppl 1):S56–66 doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1 pmid:22648676

    CrossRefPubMed