Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33326583›Full record

SynthesisNeuro-oncology2021

A Bayesian approach for diagnostic accuracy of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Enrico Martin, Ritchie T J Geitenbeek, J Henk Coert, David F Hanff, Laura H Graven, Dirk J Grünhagen, Cornelis Verhoef, Walter Taal

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuro-oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Diagnostic value ofJournal of neuro-oncology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Enrico MartinDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Ritchie T J GeitenbeekDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
J Henk CoertDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
David F HanffDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Laura H GravenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Dirk J GrünhagenDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Cornelis VerhoefDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Walter TaalDepartment of Neuro-Oncology/Neurology, Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST) carry a dismal prognosis and require early detection and complete resection. However, MPNSTs are prone to sampling errors and biopsies or resections are cumbersome and possibly damaging in benign peripheral nerve sheath tumor (BPNST). This study aimed to systematically review and quantify the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive tests for distinguishing MPNST from BPNST.

methodsStudies on accuracy of MRI, FDG-PET (fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography), and liquid biopsies were identified in PubMed and Embase from 2000 to 2019. Pooled accuracies were calculated using Bayesian bivariate meta-analyses. Individual level-patient data were analyzed for ideal maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) threshold on FDG-PET.

resultsForty-three studies were selected for qualitative synthesis including data on 1875 patients and 2939 lesions. Thirty-five studies were included for meta-analyses. For MRI, the absence of target sign showed highest sensitivity (0.99, 95% CI: 0.94-1.00); ill-defined margins (0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-0.98); and perilesional edema (0.95, 95% CI: 0.83-1.00) showed highest specificity. For FDG-PET, SUVmax and tumor-to-liver ratio show similar accuracy; sensitivity 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.97 and 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.97, respectively, specificity 0.81, 95% CI: 0.76-0.87 and 0.79, 95% CI: 0.70-0.86, respectively. SUVmax ≥3.5 yielded the best accuracy with a sensitivity of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.93-1.00) and specificity of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.56-0.90).

conclusionsBiopsies may be omitted in the presence of a target sign and the absence of ill-defined margins or perilesional edema. Because of diverse radiological characteristics of MPNST, biopsies may still commonly be required. In neurofibromatosis type 1, FDG-PET scans may further reduce biopsies. Ideal SUVmax threshold is ≥3.5.

Indexed as

Nerve Sheath NeoplasmsNeurofibrosarcomaBayes TheoremFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansPositron-Emission TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticalsliquid biopsyMPNSTneurofibromatosis type 1PET-CTradiology

Identifiers

PMID33326583
PMCPMC8041346

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.