BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) analyzes shear wave movement through tissue to determine stiffness. In a prior study, measurements with first-generation brain MRE techniques correlated with intraoperative observations of overall meningioma stiffness. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a higher-resolution MRE technique to preoperatively detect intratumoral variations compared with surgeon assessment. METHODS: Fifteen meningiomas in 14 patients underwent MRE. Tumors with regions of distinctly different stiffness were considered heterogeneous. Intratumoral portions were considered hard if there was a significant area ≥6 kPa. A 5-point scale graded intraoperative consistency. A durometer semiquantitatively measured surgical specimen hardness. Statistics included χ, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predicative values, and Spearman rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: For MRE and surgery, 9 (60%) and 7 (47%) tumors were homogeneous, 6 (40%) and 8 (53%) tumors were heterogeneous, 6 (40%) and 10 (67%) tumors had hard portions, and 14 (93%) and 12 (80%) tumors had soft portions, respectively. MRE sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were as follows: for heterogeneity, 75%, 100%, 100%, and 87%; for hardness, 60%, 100%, 100%, and 56%; and for softness, 100%, 33%, 86%, and 100%. Overall, 10 tumors (67%) matched well with MRE and intraoperative consistency and correlated between intraoperative observations (P = .02) and durometer readings (P = .03). Tumor size ≤3.5 cm or vascular tumors were more likely to be inconsistent (P < .05). CONCLUSION: MRE was excellent at ruling in heterogeneity with hard portions but less effective in ruling out heterogeneity and hard portions, particularly in tumors more vascular or <3.5 cm. MRE is the first technology capable of prospectively evaluating intratumoral stiffness and, with further refinement, will likely prove useful in preoperative planning.
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) analyzes shear wave movement through tissue to determine stiffness. In a prior study, measurements with first-generation brain MRE techniques correlated with intraoperative observations of overall meningioma stiffness. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a higher-resolution MRE technique to preoperatively detect intratumoral variations compared with surgeon assessment. METHODS: Fifteen meningiomas in 14 patients underwent MRE. Tumors with regions of distinctly different stiffness were considered heterogeneous. Intratumoral portions were considered hard if there was a significant area ≥6 kPa. A 5-point scale graded intraoperative consistency. A durometer semiquantitatively measured surgical specimen hardness. Statistics included χ, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predicative values, and Spearman rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: For MRE and surgery, 9 (60%) and 7 (47%) tumors were homogeneous, 6 (40%) and 8 (53%) tumors were heterogeneous, 6 (40%) and 10 (67%) tumors had hard portions, and 14 (93%) and 12 (80%) tumors had soft portions, respectively. MRE sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were as follows: for heterogeneity, 75%, 100%, 100%, and 87%; for hardness, 60%, 100%, 100%, and 56%; and for softness, 100%, 33%, 86%, and 100%. Overall, 10 tumors (67%) matched well with MRE and intraoperative consistency and correlated between intraoperative observations (P = .02) and durometer readings (P = .03). Tumor size ≤3.5 cm or vascular tumors were more likely to be inconsistent (P < .05). CONCLUSION: MRE was excellent at ruling in heterogeneity with hard portions but less effective in ruling out heterogeneity and hard portions, particularly in tumors more vascular or <3.5 cm. MRE is the first technology capable of prospectively evaluating intratumoral stiffness and, with further refinement, will likely prove useful in preoperative planning.
Authors: Scott A Kruse; Gregory H Rose; Kevin J Glaser; Armando Manduca; Joel P Felmlee; Clifford R Jack; Richard L Ehman Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2007-08-29 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Gabriel Zada; Parham Yashar; Aaron Robison; Jesse Winer; Alexander Khalessi; William J Mack; Steven L Giannotta Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Curtis L Johnson; Hillary Schwarb; Kevin M Horecka; Matthew D J McGarry; Charles H Hillman; Arthur F Kramer; Neal J Cohen; Aron K Barbey Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Grace McIlvain; Elahe Ganji; Catherine Cooper; Megan L Killian; Babatunde A Ogunnaike; Curtis L Johnson Journal: J Mech Behav Biomed Mater Date: 2019-05-03
Authors: Mark S Shiroishi; Steven Y Cen; Benita Tamrazi; Francesco D'Amore; Alexander Lerner; Kevin S King; Paul E Kim; Meng Law; Darryl H Hwang; Orest B Boyko; Chia-Shang J Liu Journal: Neurosurg Clin N Am Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 2.509
Authors: Jonathan M Scott; Arvin Arani; Armando Manduca; Kiaran P McGee; Joshua D Trzasko; John Huston; Richard L Ehman; Matthew C Murphy Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 8.545
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: Arunark Kolipaka; Venkata Sita Priyanka Illapani; William Kenyhercz; Joshua D Dowell; Michael R Go; Jean E Starr; Patrick S Vaccaro; Richard D White Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 4.268