C-H Toh1, M Castillo, A M-C Wong, K-C Wei, H-F Wong, S-H Ng, Y-L Wan. 1. Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan. eldomtoh@hotmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The differentiation between classic and atypical meningiomas may have implications in preoperative planning but may not be possible on the basis of conventional MR imaging. Our hypothesis was that classic and atypical meningiomas have different patterns of intratumoral water diffusion that will allow for differentiation between them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) was performed in 12 classic and 12 atypical meningiomas. Signal intensity of solid-enhancing tumor regions on diffusion-weighted trace images and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and fractional anisotropy (FA) maps was assessed. Regions of interest (ROIs) were placed in solid-enhancing regions, peritumoral edema, and contralateral normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) to measure tensor metrics including major (lambda(1)), intermediate (lambda(2)) and minor eigenvalues (lambda(3)) and FA and ADC values. Distribution of tensor shapes within enhancing tumors was calculated for all tumors. Differences between classic and atypical meningiomas in tumor signal intensity, intratumoral and peritumoral tensor metrics, as well as tensor shapes distribution were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: A significantly greater proportion of atypical meningiomas were isointense and hypointense on ADC maps (P = .007). Classic meningiomas had significantly lower FA (P = .012), higher ADC (P = .011), greater lambda(2) (P = .020) and lambda(3) (P = .003). There was significantly more spherical diffusion in classic than in atypical meningiomas (P = .020). All diffusion tensor metrics for peritumoral edema of the 2 tumor groups did not differ. CONCLUSION: DTI showed that intratumoral microscopic water motion is less organized in classic than in atypical meningiomas. This feature may allow for noninvasive differentiation between classic and atypical meningiomas.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The differentiation between classic and atypical meningiomas may have implications in preoperative planning but may not be possible on the basis of conventional MR imaging. Our hypothesis was that classic and atypical meningiomas have different patterns of intratumoral water diffusion that will allow for differentiation between them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) was performed in 12 classic and 12 atypical meningiomas. Signal intensity of solid-enhancing tumor regions on diffusion-weighted trace images and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and fractional anisotropy (FA) maps was assessed. Regions of interest (ROIs) were placed in solid-enhancing regions, peritumoral edema, and contralateral normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) to measure tensor metrics including major (lambda(1)), intermediate (lambda(2)) and minor eigenvalues (lambda(3)) and FA and ADC values. Distribution of tensor shapes within enhancing tumors was calculated for all tumors. Differences between classic and atypical meningiomas in tumor signal intensity, intratumoral and peritumoral tensor metrics, as well as tensor shapes distribution were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: A significantly greater proportion of atypical meningiomas were isointense and hypointense on ADC maps (P = .007). Classic meningiomas had significantly lower FA (P = .012), higher ADC (P = .011), greater lambda(2) (P = .020) and lambda(3) (P = .003). There was significantly more spherical diffusion in classic than in atypical meningiomas (P = .020). All diffusion tensor metrics for peritumoral edema of the 2 tumor groups did not differ. CONCLUSION: DTI showed that intratumoral microscopic water motion is less organized in classic than in atypical meningiomas. This feature may allow for noninvasive differentiation between classic and atypical meningiomas.
Authors: R D Lobato; R Alday; P A Gómez; J J Rivas; J Domínguez; A Cabrera; S Madero; J Ayerbe Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 1996 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: P Demaerel; G Wilms; M Lammens; G Marchal; C Plets; J Goffin; A L Baert Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1991 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Macarena I de la Fuente; Aya Haggiagi; Adrienne Moul; Robert J Young; Charif Sidani; Arnold Markoe; Francisco Vega; Lisa M DeAngelis; Izidore S Lossos Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2016-09-21
Authors: Raymond Y Huang; Wenya Linda Bi; Brent Griffith; Timothy J Kaufmann; Christian la Fougère; Nils Ole Schmidt; Jöerg C Tonn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Patrick Y Wen; Kenneth Aldape; Farshad Nassiri; Gelareh Zadeh; Ian F Dunn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: William L Hwang; Ariel E Marciscano; Andrzej Niemierko; Daniel W Kim; Anat O Stemmer-Rachamimov; William T Curry; Fred G Barker; Robert L Martuza; Jay S Loeffler; Kevin S Oh; Helen A Shih; Mykol Larvie Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-11-22 Impact factor: 12.300