Evaluation of tumor response to antiangiogenic therapy in patients with recurrent gliomas using contrast-enhanced perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging techniques: A meta-analysis

Table 2 The basic characteristics of the included studies

Studies	Country	Patients, n	Median age	Study design	Imaging modality	Imaging biomarkers	MR scanner tesla	Anti-angiogenic treatment	Clinical question	Standard reference	TP	FP	FN	TN
Iwamoto et al[29], 2010	United States	11	53 (29-73)	Pro-spective	DSC, DCE	Ktrans, rCBV	NR	Pazopanib	DSC and DCE vs response	Macdonald criteria RANO criteria	1	0	6	4
Piludu et al[30], 2015	Germany	27	54 (33-77)	Pro-spective	DCE	nIAUGC, Ktrans	3.0 T	Bevacizumab	DCE vs response	RANO criteria	6	0	5	16
Kalpathy-Cramer et al[31], 2017	United States	10	62 (51-74)	Pro-spective	DSC, DCE	Ktrans, rCBV, rCBF	3.0 T	Tivozanib	DSC and DCE vs response	RANO criteria	1	1	4	4
O’Neill et al[32], 2016	United States	12	NR	Pro-spective	DCE	Ktrans, Ve	1.5 T	VEGF Trap	DCE vs response	Macdonald criteria	1	0	0	11
Schmainda et al[4], 2014	United States	36	34 (30-68)	Retro-spective	DSC	rCBV, stdrCBV	1.5 T or 3.0 T	Bevacizumab	DSC vs response	Macdonald criteria RANO criteria	6	0	0	30
Hilario et al[33], 2016	Spain	24	52.5 (31-74)	Retro-spective	DSC	Leakage volume (CBV-LCCBV)	1.5 T	Bevacizumab	DSC vs response	RANO criteria	14	0	0	10

TP: True positive; FP: False positive; TN: True negative; FN: False negative; DCE: dynamic contrast-enhanced; DSC: Dynamic susceptibility.