Meta-Analysis of Diffusion Metrics for the Prediction of Tumor Grade in Gliomas

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Hajnal JV,
   3. Doran M,
   4. Hall AS, et al

   . MR imaging of anisotropically restricted diffusion of water in the nervous system. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1991;15:1–18

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Pierpaoli C,
   3. Jezzard P,
   4. Basser PJ, et al

   . Diffusion tensor MR imaging of the human brain. Radiology 1996;201:637–48

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Basser PJ,
   3. Pierpaoli C

   . Microstructural and physiological features of tissues elucidated by quantitative-diffusion-tensor MRI. J Magn Reson B 1996;111:209–19

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Higano S,
   3. Yun X,
   4. Kumabe T, et al

   . Malignant astrocytic tumors: clinical importance of apparent diffusion coefficient in prediction of grade and prognosis. Radiology 2006;241:839–46

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Murakami R,
   3. Hirai T,
   4. Kitajima M, et al

   . Magnetic resonance imaging of pilocytic astrocytomas: usefulness of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for differentiation from high-grade gliomas. Acta Radiol 2008;49:462–67

   FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Yamasaki F,
   3. Kurisu K,
   4. Aoki T, et al

   . Advantages of high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging to diagnose pseudo-responses in patients with recurrent glioma after bevacizumab treatment. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2805–10

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Saksena S,
   3. Jain R,
   4. Narang J, et al

   . Predicting survival in glioblastomas using diffusion tensor imaging metrics. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;32:788–95

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Zulfiqar M,
   3. Yousem DM,
   4. Lai H

   . ADC values and prognosis of malignant astrocytomas: does lower ADC predict a worse prognosis independent of grade of tumor? A meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:624–29

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Chen L,
   3. Liu M,
   4. Bao J, et al

   . The correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient and tumor cellularity in patients: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e79008

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Beppu T,
    3. Inoue T,
    4. Shibata Y, et al

    . Fractional anisotropy value by diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of cell density and proliferation activity of glioblastomas. Surg Neurol 2005;63:56–61, discussion 61

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Morita K,
    3. Matsuzawa H,
    4. Fujii Y, et al

    . Diffusion tensor analysis of peritumoral edema using lambda chart analysis indicative of the heterogeneity of the microstructure within edema. J Neurosurg 2005;102:336–41

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Stadlbauer A,
    3. Ganslandt O,
    4. Buslei R, et al

    . Gliomas: histopathologic evaluation of changes in directionality and magnitude of water diffusion at diffusion-tensor MR imaging. Radiology 2006;240:803–10

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Lee HY,
    3. Na DG,
    4. Song IC, et al

    . Diffusion-tensor imaging for glioma grading at 3-T magnetic resonance imaging: analysis of fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008;32:298–303

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Ferda J,
    3. Kastner J,
    4. Mukensnabl P, et al

    . Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of glial brain tumors. Eur J Radiol 2010;74:428–36

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Kinoshita M,
    3. Goto T,
    4. Okita Y, et al

    . Diffusion tensor-based tumor infiltration index cannot discriminate vasogenic edema from tumor-infiltrated edema. J Neurooncol 2010;96:409–15

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Deng Z,
    3. Yan Y,
    4. Zhong D, et al

    . Quantitative analysis of glioma cell invasion by diffusion tensor imaging. J Clin Neurosci 2010;17:1530–36

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Jakab A,
    3. Molnar P,
    4. Emri M, et al

    . Glioma grade assessment by using histogram analysis of diffusion tensor imaging-derived maps. Neuroradiology 2011;53:483–91

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. White ML,
    3. Zhang Y,
    4. Yu F, et al

    . Diffusion tensor MR imaging of cerebral gliomas: evaluating fractional anisotropy characteristics. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:374–81

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    2. Zikou AK,
    3. Alexiou GA,
    4. Kosta P, et al

    . Diffusion tensor and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI in glioblastoma. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2012;114:607–12

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Sternberg EJ,
    3. Lipton ML,
    4. Burns J

    . Utility of diffusion tensor imaging in evaluation of the peritumoral region in patients with primary and metastatic brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:439–44

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    2. Stadlbauer A,
    3. Nimsky C,
    4. Buslei R, et al

    . Diffusion tensor imaging and optimized fiber tracking in glioma patients: histopathologic evaluation of tumor-invaded white matter structures. Neuroimage 2007;34:949–56

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Kang Y,
    3. Choi SH,
    4. Kim YJ, et al

    . Gliomas: histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps with standard- or high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging–correlation with tumor grade. Radiology 2011;261:882–90

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    2. Chen Y,
    3. Shi Y,
    4. Song Z

    . Differences in the architecture of low-grade and high-grade gliomas evaluated using fiber density index and fractional anisotropy. J Clin Neurosci 2010;17:824–29

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Nilsson D,
    3. Rutka JT,
    4. Snead OC 3rd., et al

    . Preserved structural integrity of white matter adjacent to low-grade tumors. Childs Nerv Syst 2008:24:313–20

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Kingsley PB

    . Introduction to diffusion tensor imaging mathematics. Part II. Anisotropy, diffusion-weighting factors, and gradient encoding schemes. Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A 2006;28A:123–54
27. 27.↵
    R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Version 3.0.1. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013
28. 28.↵
    2. Viechtbauer W

    . Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software 2010;36:1–48
29. 29.↵
    2. Chinn S

    . A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2000;19:3127–31

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    2. Egger M,
    3. Davey Smith G,
    4. Schneider M, et al

    . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    2. Higgins JP,
    3. Thompson SG

    . Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med 2004;23:1663–82

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    2. Robin X,
    3. Turck N,
    4. Hainard A, et al

    . pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011;12:77

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Wesseling P,
    3. Vandersteenhoven J,
    4. Downey B, et al

    . Cellular components of microvascular proliferation in human glial and metastatic brain neoplasms. Acta Neuropathol 1993;85:508–14

    PubMedWeb of Science
34. 34.↵
    2. Vargová L,
    3. Homola A,
    4. Zamecnik J, et al

    . Diffusion parameters of the extracellular space in human gliomas. Glia 2003;42:77–88

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    2. Swanson KR,
    3. Alvord EC Jr.,
    4. Murray JD

    . A quantitative model for differential motility of gliomas in grey and white matter. Cell Prolif 2000;33:317–29

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
36. 36.↵
    2. Raab P,
    3. Hattingen E,
    4. Franz K, et al

    . Cerebral gliomas: diffusional kurtosis imaging analysis of microstructural differences. Radiology 2010;254:876–81

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
37. 37.↵
    2. Van Cauter S,
    3. Veraart J,
    4. Sijbers J, et al

    . Gliomas: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging in grading. Radiology 2012;263:492–501

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
38. 38.↵
    2. Paldino MJ,
    3. Barboriak D,
    4. Desjardins A, et al

    . Repeatability of quantitative parameters derived from diffusion tensor imaging in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;29:1199–205

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    2. Chow DS,
    3. Qi J,
    4. Guo X, et al

    . Semiautomated volumetric measurement on postcontrast MR imaging for analysis of recurrent and residual disease in glioblastoma multiforme. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:498–503

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
40. 40.↵
    2. Phillips HS,
    3. Kharbanda S,
    4. Chen R, et al

    . Molecular subclasses of high-grade glioma predict prognosis, delineate a pattern of disease progression, and resemble stages in neurogenesis. Cancer Cell 2006;9:157–73

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
41. 41.↵
    2. Zinn PO,
    3. Majadan B,
    4. Sathyan P, et al

    . Radiogenomic mapping of edema/cellular invasion MRI-phenotypes in glioblastoma multiforme. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e25451

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. Verhaak RG,
    3. Hoadley KA,
    4. Purdom E, et al

    . An integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR and NF1. Cancer Cell 2010;17:98

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
43. 43.↵
    2. Moon WJ,
    3. Choi JW,
    4. Roh HG, et al

    . Imaging parameters of high grade gliomas in relation to the MGMT promoter methylation status: the CT, diffusion tensor imaging, and perfusion MR imaging. Neuroradiol 2012;54:555–63

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    2. Romano A,
    3. Calabria LF,
    4. Tavanti F, et al

    . Apparent diffusion coefficient obtained by magnetic resonance imaging as a prognostic marker in glioblastomas: correlation with MGMT promoter methylation status. Eur Radiol 2013;23:513–20

    CrossRefPubMed