Cargando…

Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence

PURPOSE: MRI is integral to the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) and is important for clinical prognostication. Quantitative volumetric reporting tools (QReports) can improve the accuracy and objectivity of MRI-based assessments. Several QReports are commercially available; however, validation c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mendelsohn, Zoe, Pemberton, Hugh G., Gray, James, Goodkin, Olivia, Carrasco, Ferran Prados, Scheel, Michael, Nawabi, Jawed, Barkhof, Frederik
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9816195/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36331588
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-022-03074-w
_version_ 1784864477961781248
author Mendelsohn, Zoe
Pemberton, Hugh G.
Gray, James
Goodkin, Olivia
Carrasco, Ferran Prados
Scheel, Michael
Nawabi, Jawed
Barkhof, Frederik
author_facet Mendelsohn, Zoe
Pemberton, Hugh G.
Gray, James
Goodkin, Olivia
Carrasco, Ferran Prados
Scheel, Michael
Nawabi, Jawed
Barkhof, Frederik
author_sort Mendelsohn, Zoe
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: MRI is integral to the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) and is important for clinical prognostication. Quantitative volumetric reporting tools (QReports) can improve the accuracy and objectivity of MRI-based assessments. Several QReports are commercially available; however, validation can be difficult to establish and does not currently follow a common pathway. To aid evidence-based clinical decision-making, we performed a systematic review of commercial QReports for use in MS including technical details and published reports of validation and in-use evaluation. METHODS: We categorized studies into three types of testing: technical validation, for example, comparison to manual segmentation, clinical validation by clinicians or interpretation of results alongside clinician-rated variables, and in-use evaluation, such as health economic assessment. RESULTS: We identified 10 companies, which provide MS lesion and brain segmentation and volume quantification, and 38 relevant publications. Tools received regulatory approval between 2006 and 2020, contextualize results to normative reference populations, ranging from 620 to 8000 subjects, and require T1- and T2-FLAIR-weighted input sequences for longitudinal assessment of whole-brain volume and lesions. In MS, six QReports provided evidence of technical validation, four companies have conducted clinical validation by correlating results with clinical variables, only one has tested their QReport by clinician end-users, and one has performed a simulated in-use socioeconomic evaluation. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there is limited evidence in the literature regarding clinical validation and in-use evaluation of commercial MS QReports with a particular lack of clinician end-user testing. Our systematic review provides clinicians and institutions with the available evidence when considering adopting a quantitative reporting tool for MS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9816195
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98161952023-01-07 Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence Mendelsohn, Zoe Pemberton, Hugh G. Gray, James Goodkin, Olivia Carrasco, Ferran Prados Scheel, Michael Nawabi, Jawed Barkhof, Frederik Neuroradiology Review PURPOSE: MRI is integral to the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) and is important for clinical prognostication. Quantitative volumetric reporting tools (QReports) can improve the accuracy and objectivity of MRI-based assessments. Several QReports are commercially available; however, validation can be difficult to establish and does not currently follow a common pathway. To aid evidence-based clinical decision-making, we performed a systematic review of commercial QReports for use in MS including technical details and published reports of validation and in-use evaluation. METHODS: We categorized studies into three types of testing: technical validation, for example, comparison to manual segmentation, clinical validation by clinicians or interpretation of results alongside clinician-rated variables, and in-use evaluation, such as health economic assessment. RESULTS: We identified 10 companies, which provide MS lesion and brain segmentation and volume quantification, and 38 relevant publications. Tools received regulatory approval between 2006 and 2020, contextualize results to normative reference populations, ranging from 620 to 8000 subjects, and require T1- and T2-FLAIR-weighted input sequences for longitudinal assessment of whole-brain volume and lesions. In MS, six QReports provided evidence of technical validation, four companies have conducted clinical validation by correlating results with clinical variables, only one has tested their QReport by clinician end-users, and one has performed a simulated in-use socioeconomic evaluation. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there is limited evidence in the literature regarding clinical validation and in-use evaluation of commercial MS QReports with a particular lack of clinician end-user testing. Our systematic review provides clinicians and institutions with the available evidence when considering adopting a quantitative reporting tool for MS. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-11-04 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9816195/ /pubmed/36331588 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-022-03074-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Mendelsohn, Zoe
Pemberton, Hugh G.
Gray, James
Goodkin, Olivia
Carrasco, Ferran Prados
Scheel, Michael
Nawabi, Jawed
Barkhof, Frederik
Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence
title Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence
title_full Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence
title_fullStr Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence
title_full_unstemmed Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence
title_short Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence
title_sort commercial volumetric mri reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9816195/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36331588
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-022-03074-w
work_keys_str_mv AT mendelsohnzoe commercialvolumetricmrireportingtoolsinmultiplesclerosisasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT pembertonhughg commercialvolumetricmrireportingtoolsinmultiplesclerosisasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT grayjames commercialvolumetricmrireportingtoolsinmultiplesclerosisasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT goodkinolivia commercialvolumetricmrireportingtoolsinmultiplesclerosisasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT carrascoferranprados commercialvolumetricmrireportingtoolsinmultiplesclerosisasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT scheelmichael commercialvolumetricmrireportingtoolsinmultiplesclerosisasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT nawabijawed commercialvolumetricmrireportingtoolsinmultiplesclerosisasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT barkhoffrederik commercialvolumetricmrireportingtoolsinmultiplesclerosisasystematicreviewoftheevidence