Magnetic resonance imaging and the evaluation of vestibular schwannomas: a systematic review

Abstract

Introduction The assessment of vestibular schwannoma (VS) requires a standardized measurement approach as growth is a key element in defining treatment strategy for VS. Volumetric measurements offer higher sensitivity and precision, but existing methods of segmentation, are labour-intensive, lack standardisation and are prone to variability and subjectivity. A new core set of measurement indicators reported consistently, will support clinical decision-making and facilitate evidence synthesis. This systematic review aimed to identify indicators used in 1) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition and 2) measurement or 3) growth of VS. This work is expected to inform a Delphi consensus.

Methods Systematic searches of Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central were undertaken on 4th October 2024. Studies that assessed the evaluation of VS with MRI, between 2014 and 2024 were included.

Results The final dataset consisted of 102 studies and 19001 patients. Eighty-six (84.3%) studies employed post contrast T1 as the MRI acquisition of choice for evaluating VS. Nine (8.8%) studies additionally employed heavily weighted T2 sequences such as constructive interference in steady state (CISS) and FIESTA-C. Only 45 (44.1%) studies reported the slice thickness with the majority 38 (84.4%) choosing <3mm in thickness. Fifty-eight (56.8%) studies measured volume whilst 49 (48.0%) measured the largest linear dimension; 14 (13.7%) studies used both measurements. Four studies employed semi-automated or automated segmentation processes to measure the volumes of VS. Of 68 studies investigating growth, 54 (79.4%) provided a threshold. Significant variation in volumetric growth was observed but the threshold for significant percentage change reported by most studies was 20% (n = 18).

Conclusion Substantial variation in MRI acquisition, and methods for evaluating measurement and growth of VS, exists across the literature. This lack of standardization is likely attributed to resource constraints and the fact that currently available volumetric segmentation methods are very labour-intensive. Following the identification of the indicators employed in the literature, this study aims to develop a Delphi consensus for the standardized measurement of VS and uptake in employing a data-driven artificial intelligence-based measuring tools.

Competing Interest Statement

TV and JS are co-founder and shareholders of Hypervision Surgical Ltd which has no direct interest in the presented work.

Clinical Protocols

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024604452

Funding Statement

None

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

Upon request from corresponding author

Abbreviation listceT1contrast enhanced T1CISSconstructive interference in steady stateFIESTAfast imaging employing steady-state acquisitionhrT2high resolution T2MLDmaximal linear diameterVSvestibular schwannomas

Comments (0)

No login
gif