We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
MRI Findings in Tumefactive Demyelinating Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
AJNR. American Journal of Neuroradiology 2018 September
BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of tumefactive demyelinating lesions is clinically important to avoid unnecessary invasive biopsy or inappropriate treatment.
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate conventional and advanced MR imaging findings of tumefactive demyelinating lesions and determine the diagnostic performance of MR imaging for differentiating tumefactive demyelinating lesions from primary brain tumor.
DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE up to December 6, 2017, was conducted.
STUDY SELECTION: Original articles describing MR imaging findings in patients with tumefactive demyelinating lesions were selected.
DATA ANALYSIS: The pooled incidences of conventional MR imaging findings of tumefactive demyelinating lesions were obtained with the DerSimonian and Liard random-effects model. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging for differentiating tumefactive demyelinating lesions from primary brain tumor were obtained using the bivariate random-effects model.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Nineteen eligible studies with 476 patients with tumefactive demyelinating lesions were included. The pooled incidence of open ring or incomplete rim enhancement was 35% (95% CI, 24%-47%), which was significantly higher than the incidence of closed ring or complete rim enhancement (18% [95% CI, 11%-29%]; P = .0281). The pooled incidences of T2 hypointense rim, absent or mild mass effect, and absent or mild perilesional edema were 48%, 67%, and 57%, respectively. On advanced MR imaging, tumefactive demyelinating lesions showed a high apparent diffusion coefficient, peripheral restricted diffusion, and low cerebral blood volume. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging for differentiating tumefactive demyelinating lesions from primary brain tumor were 89% (95% CI, 82%-93%) and 94% (95% CI, 89%-97%), respectively.
LIMITATIONS: Seventeen of 19 studies were retrospective studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional MR imaging findings may help differentiate tumefactive demyelinating lesions from primary brain tumor, though further study is needed to determine the added value of advanced MR imaging.
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate conventional and advanced MR imaging findings of tumefactive demyelinating lesions and determine the diagnostic performance of MR imaging for differentiating tumefactive demyelinating lesions from primary brain tumor.
DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE up to December 6, 2017, was conducted.
STUDY SELECTION: Original articles describing MR imaging findings in patients with tumefactive demyelinating lesions were selected.
DATA ANALYSIS: The pooled incidences of conventional MR imaging findings of tumefactive demyelinating lesions were obtained with the DerSimonian and Liard random-effects model. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging for differentiating tumefactive demyelinating lesions from primary brain tumor were obtained using the bivariate random-effects model.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Nineteen eligible studies with 476 patients with tumefactive demyelinating lesions were included. The pooled incidence of open ring or incomplete rim enhancement was 35% (95% CI, 24%-47%), which was significantly higher than the incidence of closed ring or complete rim enhancement (18% [95% CI, 11%-29%]; P = .0281). The pooled incidences of T2 hypointense rim, absent or mild mass effect, and absent or mild perilesional edema were 48%, 67%, and 57%, respectively. On advanced MR imaging, tumefactive demyelinating lesions showed a high apparent diffusion coefficient, peripheral restricted diffusion, and low cerebral blood volume. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging for differentiating tumefactive demyelinating lesions from primary brain tumor were 89% (95% CI, 82%-93%) and 94% (95% CI, 89%-97%), respectively.
LIMITATIONS: Seventeen of 19 studies were retrospective studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional MR imaging findings may help differentiate tumefactive demyelinating lesions from primary brain tumor, though further study is needed to determine the added value of advanced MR imaging.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app