Table_1_5-Aminolevulinic Acid False-Positive Rates in Newly Diagnosed and Recurrent Glioblastoma: Do Pseudoprogression and Radionecrosis Play a Role? A Meta-Analysis.docx
Several studies have confirmed the impact of 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) on the extent of resection in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). However, there are controversies on the 5-ALA fluorescence status in recurrent GBM surgery, with specific reference to pseudoprogression or radionecrosis; therefore, the safety and accuracy of surgical planning in 5-ALA-assisted procedures in the recurrent context are still unclear.
Materials and MethodsThis is a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on the use of 5-ALA in newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM, consistently conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Data on fluorescence status and correlation between fluorescence and histological findings were collected. We performed a meta-analysis of proportions to estimate the pooled rates of each outcome.
ResultsThree online medical databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library) were screened, 448 articles were evaluated, and 3 papers were finally included for data analysis. Fluorescence rate was not different between newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM [p = 0.45; odds ratio (OR): 1.23; 95% CI: 0.72–2.09; I2 = 0%], while the rate of 5-ALA fluorescence-positive areas not associated with histological findings of GBM cells was higher in recurrent GBM (p = 0.04; OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.06–0.91; I2 = 19%). Furthermore, there were no cases of radionecrosis in false-positive samples, while inflammation and signs of pseudoprogression were found in 81.4% of the cases.
Discussion and ConclusionsTherefore, a robust awareness of 5-ALA potentialities and pitfalls in recurrent GBM surgery should be considered for a cognizant surgical strategy. Further clinical trials could confirm the results of the present meta-analysis.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.3390/jcm10020236
- https://doi.org//10.23736/S0390-5616.19.04854-9
- https://doi.org//10.3171/2019.11.JNS192443
- https://doi.org//10.1093/neuros/nyaa037
- https://doi.org//10.23736/S0390-5616.19.04745-3
- https://doi.org//10.3390/cancers13030580
- https://doi.org//10.3390/diagnostics10121100
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.238
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.wneu.2019.06.127
- https://doi.org//10.3171/2015.5.JNS1577
- https://doi.org//10.2176/nmc.47.210
- https://doi.org//10.1093/neuros/nyw182
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.clineuro.2011.09.001
- https://doi.org//10.3171/2017.4.JNS162991
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.wneu.2020.06.019
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00701-014-2313-4
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s11060-018-2956-8
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s12880-020-00545-5
- https://doi.org//10.1155/2018/6828396
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s11060-017-2375-2
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.10.004