Back

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

Lee, K. S.; Wijetilake, N.; Connor, S.; Vercauteren, T.; Shapey, J.

2025-06-06 surgery
10.1101/2025.06.06.25329105 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionThe 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. MethodsSystematic 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. ResultsThe 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). ConclusionSubstantial 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.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
13.6%
2
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.8%
3
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.0%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 21%
5.2%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.2%
6
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.6%
7
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
9
Neurobiology of Disease
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
10
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
11
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
12
Muscle & Nerve
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.2%
13
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
14
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
15
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.0%
16
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
17
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
18
Clinical Neurophysiology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
19
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
20
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
21
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
22
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
23
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
24
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
25
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
27
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
28
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%