MRI-Based Machine Learning to Differentiate True Progression from Pseudoprogression in Glioblastoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 13.1 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Xin Zhang, Xiaopeng Guo, Yu Wang, Konrad Wagstyl, Thomas C Booth
{"title":"MRI-Based Machine Learning to Differentiate True Progression from Pseudoprogression in Glioblastoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Xin Zhang, Xiaopeng Guo, Yu Wang, Konrad Wagstyl, Thomas C Booth","doi":"10.1093/neuonc/noag259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Differentiating true progression (TP) from pseudoprogression (PsP) after chemoradiation for glioblastoma remains clinically difficult. We evaluated externally validated diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based machine learning models and appraised study quality and transparency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched through October 1, 2025 (PROSPERO registration CRD420251144894). Eligible adult glioblastoma studies used MRI-based machine learning to distinguish TP from PsP against histopathology and/or clinicoradiologic follow-up. The primary meta-analysis included external test cohorts with extractable 2 × 2 data; internal and combined internal and external test analyses were secondary. Diagnostic accuracy was synthesized with bivariate random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one studies including 2,344 patients undergoing imaging assessment were included. Seven external test cohorts, including 219 patient observations, entered the primary meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.88), specificity was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.84), and summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.81 (bootstrap 95% CI, 0.69-0.91). Internal test cohorts showed higher apparent performance than external cohorts (AUC, 0.91 vs 0.81), but the difference was not statistically significant (difference, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.02; P = 0.12). Risk of bias was frequently high or unclear, and reporting transparency was heterogeneous.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MRI-based machine learning showed moderate-to-good external validation performance for TP-versus-PsP discrimination, but evidence remains limited by small external test cohorts, bias, and incomplete reporting. Larger transparent multicenter validations are needed before routine clinical implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19377,"journal":{"name":"Neuro-oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuro-oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noag259","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Differentiating true progression (TP) from pseudoprogression (PsP) after chemoradiation for glioblastoma remains clinically difficult. We evaluated externally validated diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based machine learning models and appraised study quality and transparency.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched through October 1, 2025 (PROSPERO registration CRD420251144894). Eligible adult glioblastoma studies used MRI-based machine learning to distinguish TP from PsP against histopathology and/or clinicoradiologic follow-up. The primary meta-analysis included external test cohorts with extractable 2 × 2 data; internal and combined internal and external test analyses were secondary. Diagnostic accuracy was synthesized with bivariate random-effects models.

Results: Thirty-one studies including 2,344 patients undergoing imaging assessment were included. Seven external test cohorts, including 219 patient observations, entered the primary meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.88), specificity was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.84), and summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.81 (bootstrap 95% CI, 0.69-0.91). Internal test cohorts showed higher apparent performance than external cohorts (AUC, 0.91 vs 0.81), but the difference was not statistically significant (difference, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.02; P = 0.12). Risk of bias was frequently high or unclear, and reporting transparency was heterogeneous.

Conclusions: MRI-based machine learning showed moderate-to-good external validation performance for TP-versus-PsP discrimination, but evidence remains limited by small external test cohorts, bias, and incomplete reporting. Larger transparent multicenter validations are needed before routine clinical implementation.

基于mri的机器学习区分胶质母细胞瘤的真进展和假进展:最新的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:胶质母细胞瘤放化疗后的真进展(TP)与假进展(PsP)的鉴别在临床上仍然很困难。我们评估了外部验证的基于磁共振成像(MRI)的机器学习模型的诊断性能,并评估了研究质量和透明度。方法:检索至2025年10月1日的PubMed、Embase、MEDLINE和Cochrane Library (PROSPERO注册号CRD420251144894)。符合条件的成人胶质母细胞瘤研究使用基于mri的机器学习,通过组织病理学和/或临床放射学随访来区分TP和PsP。主要荟萃分析包括具有可提取的2 × 2数据的外部测试队列;其次是内部和内外联合试验分析。诊断准确性采用双变量随机效应模型进行综合。结果:纳入31项研究,包括2,344例接受影像学评估的患者。7个外部测试队列,包括219例患者观察,进入主要荟萃分析。合并敏感性为0.78(95%可信区间[CI], 0.63-0.88),特异性为0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.84),受试者工作特征曲线下的总面积(AUC)为0.81 (bootstrap 95% CI, 0.69-0.91)。内部测试队列的表观表现高于外部测试队列(AUC, 0.91 vs 0.81),但差异无统计学意义(差异,-0.09;95% CI, -0.22 ~ 0.02; P = 0.12)。偏倚的风险往往很高或不明确,报告的透明度也各不相同。结论:基于mri的机器学习在tp与psp区分方面显示出中等到良好的外部验证性能,但证据仍然受到外部测试队列小、偏倚和报告不完整的限制。在常规临床应用之前,需要更大的透明多中心验证。
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
Neuro-oncology
Neuro-oncology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
27.20
自引率
6.30%
发文量
1434
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuro-Oncology, the official journal of the Society for Neuro-Oncology, has been published monthly since January 2010. Affiliated with the Japan Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology, it is a global leader in the field. The journal is committed to swiftly disseminating high-quality information across all areas of neuro-oncology. It features peer-reviewed articles, reviews, symposia on various topics, abstracts from annual meetings, and updates from neuro-oncology societies worldwide.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书