MRI Findings in Tumefactive Demyelinating Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Hardy TA,
   3. Chataway J

   . Tumefactive demyelination: an approach to diagnosis and management. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84:1047–53 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2012-304498 pmid:23334629

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   2. Ayrignac X,
   3. Menjot de Champfleur N,
   4. Menjot de Champfleur S, et al

   . Brain magnetic resonance imaging helps to differentiate atypical multiple sclerosis with cavitary lesions and vanishing white matter disease. Eur J Neurol 2016;23:995–1000 doi:10.1111/ene.12931 pmid:26727496

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Wallner-Blazek M,
   3. Rovira A,
   4. Fillipp M, et al

   . Atypical idiopathic inflammatory demyelinating lesions: prognostic implications and relation to multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2013;260:2016–22 doi:10.1007/s00415-013-6918-y pmid:23620065

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Altintas A,
   3. Petek B,
   4. Isik N, et al

   . Clinical and radiological characteristics of tumefactive demyelinating lesions: follow-up study. Mult Scler 2012;18:1448–53 doi:10.1177/1352458512438237 pmid:22419670

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Cha S,
   3. Pierce S,
   4. Knopp EA, et al

   . Dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging of tumefactive demyelinating lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1109–16 pmid:11415906

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Hiremath SB,
   3. Muraleedharan A,
   4. Kumar S, et al

   . Combining diffusion tensor metrics and DSC perfusion imaging: can it improve the diagnostic accuracy in differentiating tumefactive demyelination from high-grade glioma? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:685–90 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5089 pmid:28209583

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Jain RS,
   3. Khan I,
   4. Kandelwal K, et al

   . Tumefactive demyelinating lesions (TDLs): a case series of clinicoradiological features. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2017;162:91–94 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.09.013 pmid:28987645

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Kilic AK,
   3. Kurne AT,
   4. Oguz KK, et al

   . Mass lesions in the brain: tumor or multiple sclerosis? Clinical and imaging characteristics and course from a single reference center. Turk Neurosurg 2013;23:728–35 doi:10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.7690-12.3 pmid:24310455 pmid:24310455

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Kim DS,
   3. Na DG,
   4. Kim KH, et al

   . Distinguishing tumefactive demyelinating lesions from glioma or central nervous system lymphoma: added value of unenhanced CT compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2009;251:467–75 doi:10.1148/radiol.2512072071 pmid:19261924

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Kiriyama T,
    3. Kataoka H,
    4. Taoka T, et al

    . Characteristic neuroimaging in patients with tumefactive demyelinating lesions exceeding 30 mm. J Neuroimaging 2011;21:e69–77 doi:10.1111/j.1552-6569.2010.00502.x pmid:20572907

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Kuan YC,
    3. Wang KC,
    4. Yuan WH, et al

    . Tumefactive multiple sclerosis in Taiwan. PLoS One 2013;8:e69919 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069919 pmid:23875010

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Lu SS,
    3. Kim SJ,
    4. Kim N, et al

    . Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps for differentiating primary CNS lymphomas from tumefactive demyelinating lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:827–34 doi:10.2214/AJR.14.12677 pmid:25794073

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Lucchinetti CF,
    3. Gavrilova RH,
    4. Metz I, et al

    . Clinical and radiographic spectrum of pathologically confirmed tumefactive multiple sclerosis. Brain 2008;131:1759–75 doi:10.1093/brain/awn098 pmid:18535080

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Mabray MC,
    3. Cohen BA,
    4. Villanueva-Meyer JE, et al

    . Performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values and conventional MRI features in differentiating tumefactive demyelinating lesions from primary brain neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:1075–85 doi:10.2214/AJR.14.13970 pmid:26496556

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Malhotra HS,
    3. Jain KK,
    4. Agarwal A, et al

    . Characterization of tumefactive demyelinating lesions using MR imaging and in-vivo proton MR spectroscopy. Mult Scler 2009;15:193–203 doi:10.1177/1352458508097922 pmid:19181773

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Miron S,
    3. Tal S,
    4. Achiron A

    . Diffusion tensor imaging analysis of tumefactive giant brain lesions in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2013;23:453–59 doi:10.1111/j.1552-6569.2011.00680.x pmid:22273156

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Qi W,
    3. Jia GE,
    4. Wang X, et al

    . Cerebral tumefactive demyelinating lesions. Oncol Lett 2015;10:1763–68 doi:10.3892/ol.2015.3481 pmid:26622747

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Saini J,
    3. Chatterjee S,
    4. Thomas B, et al

    . Conventional and advanced magnetic resonance imaging in tumefactive demyelination. Acta Radiol 2011;52:1159–68 doi:10.1258/ar.2011.110007 pmid:22025739

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Sánchez P,
    3. Meca-Lallana V,
    4. Barbosa A, et al

    . Tumefactive demyelinating lesions of 15 patients: clinico-radiological features, management and review of the literature. J Neurol Sci 2017;381:32–38 doi:10.1016/j.jns.2017.08.005 pmid:28991707

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Siri A,
    3. Carra-Dalliere C,
    4. Ayrignac X, et al

    . Isolated tumefactive demyelinating lesions: diagnosis and long-term evolution of 16 patients in a multicentric study. J Neurol 2015;262:1637–45 doi:10.1007/s00415-015-7758-8 pmid:25929666

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Toh CH,
    3. Wei KC,
    4. Ng SH, et al

    . Differentiation of tumefactive demyelinating lesions from high-grade gliomas with the use of diffusion tensor imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:846–51 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2871 pmid:22173757

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    2. Yiu EM,
    3. Laughlin S,
    4. Verhey LH, et al

    ; Canadian Pediatric Demyelinating Disease Network. Clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) distinctions between tumefactive demyelination and brain tumors in children. J Child Neurol 2014;29:654–65 doi:10.1177/0883073813500713 pmid:24092896

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Given CA 2nd.,
    3. Stevens BS,
    4. Lee C

    . The MRI appearance of tumefactive demyelinating lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:195–99 doi:10.2214/ajr.182.1.1820195 pmid:14684539

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    2. Seewann A,
    3. Enzinger C,
    4. Filippi M, et al

    . MRI characteristics of atypical idiopathic inflammatory demyelinating lesions of the brain: a review of reported findings. J Neurol 2008;255:1–10 doi:10.1007/s00415-007-0754-x pmid:18004634

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Kepes JJ

    . Large focal tumor-like demyelinating lesions of the brain: intermediate entity between multiple sclerosis and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis? A study of 31 patients. Ann Neurol 1993;33:18–27 doi:10.1002/ana.410330105 pmid:8494332

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Dagher AP,
    3. Smirniotopoulos J

    . Tumefactive demyelinating lesions. Neuroradiology 1996;38:560–65 doi:10.1007/BF00626098 pmid:8880719

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Whiting PF,
    3. Rutjes AW,
    4. Westwood ME, et al

    ; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 pmid:22007046

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Liberati A,
    3. Altman DG,
    4. Tetzlaff J, et al

    . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:W65–94 pmid:19622512

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Suh CH,
    3. Park SH

    . Successful publication of systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:5–6 doi:10.3348/kjr.2016.17.1.5 pmid:26798211

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Kim KW,
    3. Lee J,
    4. Choi SH, et al

    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers, Part I: general guidance and tips. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:1175–87 doi:10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1175 pmid:26576106

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Lee J,
    3. Kim KW,
    4. Choi SH, et al

    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers, Part II: statistical methods of meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:1188–96 doi:10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1188 pmid:26576107

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Higgins JP,
    3. Thompson SG,
    4. Deeks JJ, et al

    . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60 doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 pmid:12958120

    FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    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 doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 pmid:9310563

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
34. 34.↵
    2. Deeks JJ,
    3. Macaskill P,
    4. Irwig L

    . The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882–93 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 pmid:16085191

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    2. Masdeu JC,
    3. Quinto C,
    4. Olivera C, et al

    . Open-ring imaging sign: highly specific for atypical brain demyelination. Neurology 2000;54:1427–33 doi:10.1212/WNL.54.7.1427 pmid:10751251

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    2. He J,
    3. Grossman RI,
    4. Ge Y, et al

    . Enhancing patterns in multiple sclerosis: evolution and persistence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:664–69 pmid:11290475

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
37. 37.↵
    2. Lassmann H

    . The pathologic substrate of magnetic resonance alterations in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2008;18:563–76, ix doi:10.1016/j.nic.2008.06.005 pmid:19068402

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
38. 38.↵
    2. Lu SS,
    3. Kim SJ,
    4. Kim HS, et al

    . Utility of proton MR spectroscopy for differentiating typical and atypical primary central nervous system lymphomas from tumefactive demyelinating lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:270–77 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3677 pmid:23928144

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    1. Deeks JJ,
    2. Bossuyt PM,
    3. Gatsonis C

    , eds. 2013 Cochrane Handbook for DTA Reviews, Version 1.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://srdta.cochrane.org/handbook-dta-reviews. Accessed October 9, 2017.
40. 40.↵
    2. Trikalinos TA,
    3. Balion CM,
    4. Coleman CI, et al

    . Chapter 8: meta-analysis of test performance when there is a “gold standard.” J Gen Intern Med 2012;27(Suppl 1):S56–66 doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1 pmid:22648676

    CrossRefPubMed