Diagnostic Performance of ASL-MRI and FDG-PET in Frontotemporal Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Richard Dagher, Parisa Arjmand, Burak Berksu Ozkara, Mahla Radmard, Mona Gad, Ali Sheikhy, Max Wintermark, Vivek Yedavalli, Haris I Sair, Licia P Luna
{"title":"Diagnostic Performance of ASL-MRI and FDG-PET in Frontotemporal Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Richard Dagher, Parisa Arjmand, Burak Berksu Ozkara, Mahla Radmard, Mona Gad, Ali Sheikhy, Max Wintermark, Vivek Yedavalli, Haris I Sair, Licia P Luna","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While the diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is based mostly on clinical features, [18F]-FDG PET has been investigated as a potential imaging golden standard in ambiguous cases, with arterial spin labeling (ASL) MRI gaining recent interest.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic performance of ASL MRI in FTD patients and compare it to that of [18F]-FDG PET.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE was conducted until March 13, 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Inclusion criteria were: original articles, patients with FTD and/or its variants, use of ASL MR perfusion imaging with or without [18F]-FDG PET, presence of sufficient diagnostic performance data. Exclusion criteria were: meeting abstracts, comments, summaries, protocols, letters and guidelines, longitudinal studies, overlapping cohorts.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>The quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for [18F]-FDG PET and ASL MRI were calculated, and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Seven eligible studies were identified, which included a total of 102 FTD patients. Aside from some of the studies showing at worst an unclear risk of bias in patient selection, index test, flow and timing, all studies showed low risk of bias and applicability concerns in all categories. Data from 4 studies was included in our meta-analysis for ASL MRI and 3 studies for [18F]-FDG PET. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and DOR were 0.70 (95% CI: 0.59-0.79), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71-0.88) and 8.00 (95% CI: 3.74-17.13) for ASL MRI, and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.71-0.96), 0.89 (95% CI: 0.43-0.99) and 47.18 (95% CI: 10.77-206.75) for [18F]-FDG PET.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The number of studies was relatively small, with a small sample size. The studies used different scanning protocols as well as a mix of diagnostic metrics, all of which might have introduced heterogeneity in the data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While ASL MRI performed worse than [18F]-FDG PET in the diagnosis of FTD, it exhibited a decent diagnostic performance to justify its further investigation as a quicker and more convenient alternative.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>3DPCASL, 3D pseudocontinuous ASL; AD, Alzheimer's disease; ASL, arterial spin labeling; AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio; FN, false negative; FP, false positive; FTD, frontotemporal dementia; LE, limbic encephalitis; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; PASL, pulsed ASL; PLD, post-label delay; PLR, positive likelihood ratio; PRISMA, PSP, progressive supranuclear palsy; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis; SROC, summary receiver operative characteristic; TN, true negative; TP, true positive; QUADAS-2, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8440","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While the diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is based mostly on clinical features, [18F]-FDG PET has been investigated as a potential imaging golden standard in ambiguous cases, with arterial spin labeling (ASL) MRI gaining recent interest.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic performance of ASL MRI in FTD patients and compare it to that of [18F]-FDG PET.

Data sources: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE was conducted until March 13, 2024.

Study selection: Inclusion criteria were: original articles, patients with FTD and/or its variants, use of ASL MR perfusion imaging with or without [18F]-FDG PET, presence of sufficient diagnostic performance data. Exclusion criteria were: meeting abstracts, comments, summaries, protocols, letters and guidelines, longitudinal studies, overlapping cohorts.

Data analysis: The quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for [18F]-FDG PET and ASL MRI were calculated, and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted.

Data synthesis: Seven eligible studies were identified, which included a total of 102 FTD patients. Aside from some of the studies showing at worst an unclear risk of bias in patient selection, index test, flow and timing, all studies showed low risk of bias and applicability concerns in all categories. Data from 4 studies was included in our meta-analysis for ASL MRI and 3 studies for [18F]-FDG PET. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and DOR were 0.70 (95% CI: 0.59-0.79), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71-0.88) and 8.00 (95% CI: 3.74-17.13) for ASL MRI, and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.71-0.96), 0.89 (95% CI: 0.43-0.99) and 47.18 (95% CI: 10.77-206.75) for [18F]-FDG PET.

Limitations: The number of studies was relatively small, with a small sample size. The studies used different scanning protocols as well as a mix of diagnostic metrics, all of which might have introduced heterogeneity in the data.

Conclusions: While ASL MRI performed worse than [18F]-FDG PET in the diagnosis of FTD, it exhibited a decent diagnostic performance to justify its further investigation as a quicker and more convenient alternative.

Abbreviations: 3DPCASL, 3D pseudocontinuous ASL; AD, Alzheimer's disease; ASL, arterial spin labeling; AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio; FN, false negative; FP, false positive; FTD, frontotemporal dementia; LE, limbic encephalitis; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; PASL, pulsed ASL; PLD, post-label delay; PLR, positive likelihood ratio; PRISMA, PSP, progressive supranuclear palsy; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis; SROC, summary receiver operative characteristic; TN, true negative; TP, true positive; QUADAS-2, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.

ASL-MRI 和 FDG-PET 在额颞叶痴呆症中的诊断性能:系统回顾与元分析》。
背景:虽然额颞叶痴呆(FTD)的诊断主要基于临床特征,但[18F]-FDG PET已被研究作为模糊病例的潜在影像学金标准,而动脉自旋标记(ASL)MRI最近也受到了关注。目的:本研究旨在对ASL MRI在FTD患者中的诊断性能进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,并将其与[18F]-FDG PET进行比较:数据来源:对PubMed、Scopus和EMBASE进行了系统检索,检索期至2024年3月13日:纳入标准:原创文章、FTD 和/或其变异型患者、使用或不使用 [18F]-FDG PET 的 ASL MR 灌注成像、有足够的诊断性能数据。排除标准为:会议摘要、评论、摘要、协议、信件和指南、纵向研究、重叠队列:数据分析:采用诊断准确性研究质量评估(Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2)对符合条件的研究进行质量评估。计算了[18F]-FDG PET和ASL MRI的汇总敏感性、特异性和诊断几率比(DOR),并绘制了汇总接收者操作特征曲线:共确定了七项符合条件的研究,共纳入 102 名 FTD 患者。除了部分研究在患者选择、指标检测、流程和时间方面存在最差的不明确偏倚风险外,所有研究在所有类别中均显示出较低的偏倚风险和适用性问题。我们的荟萃分析纳入了 4 项 ASL MRI 研究和 3 项[18F]-FDG PET 研究的数据。ASL MRI 的汇总灵敏度、特异性和 DOR 分别为 0.70(95% CI:0.59-0.79)、0.81(95% CI:0.71-0.88)和 8.00(95% CI:3.74-17.13);[18F]-FDG PET 的汇总灵敏度、特异性和 DOR 分别为 0.88(95% CI:0.71-0.96)、0.89(95% CI:0.43-0.99)和 47.18(95% CI:10.77-206.75):研究数量相对较少,样本量较小。这些研究使用了不同的扫描方案以及各种诊断指标,所有这些都可能导致数据的异质性:虽然 ASL MRI 在 FTD 诊断中的表现不如[18F]-FDG PET,但其诊断性能尚可,有理由将其作为一种更快、更方便的替代方法进行进一步研究:缩写:3DPCASL,三维伪连续 ASL;AD,阿尔茨海默病;ASL,动脉自旋标记;AUC,曲线下面积;CI,置信区间;DOR,诊断几率比;FN,假阴性;FP,假阳性;FTD,额颞叶痴呆;LE,肢端脑炎;NLR,负似然比;PASL,脉冲 ASL;PLD,标签后延迟;PLR,阳性似然比;PRISMA,PSP,进行性核上性麻痹;Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis,系统综述和荟萃分析的首选报告项目;SROC,接受者操作特征摘要;TN,真阴性;TP,真阳性;QUADAS-2,诊断准确性研究质量评估-2。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信