» Articles » PMID: 36035372

Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Perfusion Are Potential Predictors for Grading Meningiomas

Overview
Journal Int J Med Sci
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2022 Aug 29
PMID 36035372
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

: Distinguishing between high-grade and low-grade meningiomas might be difficult but has high clinical value in deciding precise treatment and prognostic factors. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) may have a significant role in capturing such complexities. : Data from our hospital database on meningioma patients from January 2020 to December 2021 were obtained. The MRI results of all patients were evaluated for mean ADC value and DCE parameters, including time-signal intensity curves (TIC), maximum signal intensity (SImax), time to maximum signal intensity (Tmax), maximum contrast enhancement ratio (MCER), and slope. : In this retrospective analysis, 33 individuals were included. Twenty-eight (84.8%) patients were pathologically diagnosed with low-grade meningioma and five (15.2%) patients with high-grade meningioma. There is a crossover between high- and low-grade meningiomas in conventional MRI. Tumor size, location, shape, necrotic/cystic changes, peritumoral edema, and enhancement patterns did not differ substantially between groups ( = 0.39, 0.23, 0.28, 0.57, 0.56, and 0.33, respectively). The mean ADC and Tmax values of high-grade meningiomas were substantially lower than those of low-grade meningiomas ( = 0.002 and 0.02, respectively). An optimal cut-off of 0.87 × 10 mms for the mean ADC value (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.94, sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 92.8%) and 42 s for Tmax (AUC = 0.84, sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 89.3%) was suggested. High-grade meningiomas had significantly higher TIC, SImax, MCER, and slope than low-grade meningiomas ( = 0.004, < 0.001, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively). Type IV TIC had a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 89.3% in distinguishing high-grade meningiomas from low-grade meningiomas. Optimal cut-offs of 940.2 for SImax (AUC = 0.98, sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 96.4%), 245% for MCER (AUC = 0.94, sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 85.7%), and 5% per second for slope (AUC = 0.97, sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 96.4%) were estimated. : The ADC value and DCE-MRI parameters (TIC, SImax, Tmax, MCER, and slope) are potential predictors for separating high-grade from low-grade meningiomas.

Citing Articles

Risk factors associated with higher WHO grade in meningiomas: a multicentric study of 552 skull base meningiomas.

May M, Sedlak V, Pecen L, Priban V, Buchvald P, Fiedler J Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):3715.

PMID: 39880897 PMC: 11779799. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-87882-z.

References
1.
Zakhari N, Torres C, Castillo M, Nguyen T . Uncommon Cranial Meningioma: Key Imaging Features on Conventional and Advanced Imaging. Clin Neuroradiol. 2017; 27(2):135-144. DOI: 10.1007/s00062-017-0583-y. View

2.
Ota Y, Liao E, Capizzano A, Yokota H, Baba A, Kurokawa R . MR diffusion and dynamic-contrast enhanced imaging to distinguish meningioma, paraganglioma, and schwannoma in the cerebellopontine angle and jugular foramen. J Neuroimaging. 2021; 32(3):502-510. DOI: 10.1111/jon.12959. View

3.
Santarosa C, Castellano A, Conte G, Cadioli M, Iadanza A, Terreni M . Dynamic contrast-enhanced and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging for glioma grading: Preliminary comparison of vessel compartment and permeability parameters using hotspot and histogram analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2016; 85(6):1147-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.03.020. View

4.
Carpeggiani P, Crisi G, Trevisan C . MRI of intracranial meningiomas: correlations with histology and physical consistency. Neuroradiology. 1993; 35(7):532-6. DOI: 10.1007/BF00588715. View

5.
Pavlisa G, Rados M, Pazanin L, Padovan R, Ozretic D, Pavlisa G . Characteristics of typical and atypical meningiomas on ADC maps with respect to schwannomas. Clin Imaging. 2008; 32(1):22-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2007.07.007. View