» Articles » PMID: 35328183

Preoperative Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values for Differentiation Between Low and High Grade Meningiomas: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview
Specialty Radiology
Date 2022 Mar 25
PMID 35328183
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The meta-analysis aimed to compare the preoperative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values between low-grade meningiomas (LGMs) and high-grade meningiomas (HGMs). Medline, Cochrane, Scopus, and Embase databases were screened up to January 2022 for studies investigating the ADC values of meningiomas. The study endpoint was the reported ADC values for LGMs and HGMs. Further subgroup analyses between 1.5T and 3T MRI scanners, ADC threshold values, ADC in different histological LGMs, and correlation coefficients (r) between ADC and Ki-67 were also performed. The quality of studies was evaluated by the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2). A χ2-based test of homogeneity was performed using Cochran’s Q statistic and inconsistency index (I2). Twenty-five studies with a total of 1552 meningiomas (1102 LGMs and 450 HGMs) were included. The mean ADC values (×10−3 mm2/s) were 0.92 and 0.79 for LGMs and HGMs, respectively. Compared with LGMs, significantly lower mean ADC values for HGMs were observed with a pooled difference of 0.13 (p < 0.00001). The results were consistent in both 1.5T and 3T MRI scanners. For ADC threshold values, pooled sensitivity of 69%, specificity of 82%, and AUC of 0.84 are obtained for differentiation between LGMs and HGMs. The mean ADC (×10−3 mm2/s) in different histological LGMs ranged from 0.87 to 1.22. Correlation coefficients (r) of mean ADC and Ki-67 ranged from −0.29 to −0.61. Preoperative ADC values are a useful tool for differentiating between LGMs and HGMs. Results of this study provide valuable information for planning treatments in meningiomas.

Citing Articles

Meningioma: Molecular Updates from the 2021 World Health Organization Classification of CNS Tumors and Imaging Correlates.

Soni N, Ora M, Bathla G, Szekeres D, Desai A, Pillai J AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2024; 46(2):240-250.

PMID: 38844366 PMC: 11878982. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A8368.


Brain Tumor Imaging without Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents: Feasible or Fantasy?.

Wamelink I, Azizova A, Booth T, Mutsaerts H, Ogunleye A, Mankad K Radiology. 2024; 310(2):e230793.

PMID: 38319162 PMC: 10902600. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.230793.


Diffusion Weighted Imaging in Neuro-Oncology: Diagnosis, Post-Treatment Changes, and Advanced Sequences-An Updated Review.

Romano A, Palizzi S, Romano A, Moltoni G, Di Napoli A, Maccioni F Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(3).

PMID: 36765575 PMC: 9913305. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15030618.


The Diagnostic Efficiency of Quantitative Diffusion Weighted Imaging in Differentiating Medulloblastoma from Posterior Fossa Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Luo Y, Zhang S, Tan W, Lin G, Zhuang Y, Zeng H Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(11).

PMID: 36428860 PMC: 9689934. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12112796.

References
1.
Harbord R, Deeks J, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne J . A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics. 2006; 8(2):239-51. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxl004. View

2.
Babu S, Uppin S, Uppin M, Panigrahi M, Saradhi V, Bhattacharjee S . Meningiomas: correlation of Ki67 with histological grade. Neurol India. 2011; 59(2):204-7. DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.79140. View

3.
Durand A, Labrousse F, Jouvet A, Bauchet L, Kalamarides M, Menei P . WHO grade II and III meningiomas: a study of prognostic factors. J Neurooncol. 2009; 95(3):367-375. DOI: 10.1007/s11060-009-9934-0. View

4.
Le Bihan D, Iima M . Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging: What Water Tells Us about Biological Tissues. PLoS Biol. 2015; 13(7):e1002203. PMC: 4512706. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002203. View

5.
Marosi C, Hassler M, Roessler K, Reni M, Sant M, Mazza E . Meningioma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2008; 67(2):153-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2008.01.010. View