INTRODUCTION: Meningiomas are typically slow-growing lesions that, depending on the location, can be relatively benign. Knowing their exact rate of growth can be helpful in determining whether surgery is necessary. METHODS: In this study we retrospectively reviewed the meningioma practices of the two senior authors (JR, MR). Our goal was to measure meningioma growth using a variety of methods (linear using diameters, and volumetric using the computer-aided perimeter and cross-sectional diameter methods) to compare rates of growth among the methods. Of 295 meningioma patients seen over an 8-year period, we identified a cohort of 31 patients with at least 30 months of follow-up. Volumes were calculated using medical imaging software with T1 post-contrast magnetic resonance imaging. Doubling times and growth rates were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 31 patients, 26 (84%) were shown to have growing meningiomas. The perimeter methodology measured higher growth rates than the diameter method for both doubling times as well as percentage annual growth (p<0.01). The mean doubling time was 13.4 years (range, 2.1–72.8 years) and 17.9 years (range, 4–92.3 years) comparing perimeter and diameter methods, respectively. The mean percentage of annual growth was 15.2% (range, 1.8–61.7%) and 5.6% (range, 0.7–12.2%), comparing perimeter and diameter methods, respectively. Linear growth was calculated at 0.7 mm/year. CONCLUSION: Overall, we found that computer-aided perimeter methods showed a more accurate picture of tumor progression than traditional methods, which generally underestimated growth.
INTRODUCTION:Meningiomas are typically slow-growing lesions that, depending on the location, can be relatively benign. Knowing their exact rate of growth can be helpful in determining whether surgery is necessary. METHODS: In this study we retrospectively reviewed the meningioma practices of the two senior authors (JR, MR). Our goal was to measure meningioma growth using a variety of methods (linear using diameters, and volumetric using the computer-aided perimeter and cross-sectional diameter methods) to compare rates of growth among the methods. Of 295 meningiomapatients seen over an 8-year period, we identified a cohort of 31 patients with at least 30 months of follow-up. Volumes were calculated using medical imaging software with T1 post-contrast magnetic resonance imaging. Doubling times and growth rates were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 31 patients, 26 (84%) were shown to have growing meningiomas. The perimeter methodology measured higher growth rates than the diameter method for both doubling times as well as percentage annual growth (p<0.01). The mean doubling time was 13.4 years (range, 2.1–72.8 years) and 17.9 years (range, 4–92.3 years) comparing perimeter and diameter methods, respectively. The mean percentage of annual growth was 15.2% (range, 1.8–61.7%) and 5.6% (range, 0.7–12.2%), comparing perimeter and diameter methods, respectively. Linear growth was calculated at 0.7 mm/year. CONCLUSION: Overall, we found that computer-aided perimeter methods showed a more accurate picture of tumor progression than traditional methods, which generally underestimated growth.
Authors: Charles F Opalak; Matthew Parry; Andrew K Rock; Adam P Sima; Matthew T Carr; Vyshak Chandra; Kathryn G Workman; Aravind Somasundaram; William C Broaddus Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Pedro David Delgado-López; Antonio Montalvo-Afonso; Javier Martín-Alonso; Vicente Martín-Velasco; José Manuel Castilla-Díez; Ana María Galacho-Harriero; Sara Ortega-Cubero; Antonio Sánchez-Rodríguez; Antonio Rodríguez-Salazar Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Jonadab Dos Santos Silva; Cláudia Abib Schreiner; Lázaro de Lima; Carlos Eduardo Pinheiro Leal Brigido; Christopher D Wilson; Luke McVeigh; Joseph Acchiardo; José Alberto Landeiro; Marcus André Acioly; Aaron Cohen-Gadol Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 4.506
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: Daniel M Fountain; Wai Cheong Soon; Tomasz Matys; Mathew R Guilfoyle; Ramez Kirollos; Thomas Santarius Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 2.216