Joshua D Hughes1, Nikoo Fattahi2, J Van Gompel1, Arvin Arani2, Richard Ehman2, John Huston3,4. 1. Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. jhuston@mayo.edu. 4. Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55901, USA. jhuston@mayo.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Most pituitary macroadenomas (PMA) are soft and suckable allowing transsphenoidal resection. A small percentage of PMA are firm, which significantly alters the time, technical difficulty, and effectiveness of transsphenoidal surgery. No current imaging technology can reliably assess PMA viscoelastic consistency in preparation for surgery. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is an MRI-based technique that measures the propagation of mechanically induced shear waves through tissue to calculate stiffness. We prospectively evaluated MRE in 10 patients undergoing transsphenoidal resection of PMA to determine feasibility and potential usefulness. METHODS: 10 patients with PMA > 2.0 cm in maximum diameter were prospectively imaged with MRE prior to transsphenoidal surgery. Mean patient age was 59.5 ± 16.2 (22-78) years. Five were female and five male. MRE was performed with a modified single-shot spin-echo echo-planar-imaging pulse sequence on a 3T MRI. MRE values were independently calculated. The surgeon, blinded to the MRE results, graded tumor consistency at surgery as soft, intermediate, or firm. Chi-squared test compared surgical grading and MRE stiffness values. RESULTS: MRE was accomplished in all patients with excellent resolution. By surgical categorization, six tumors were soft and four intermediate. The mean MRE value for soft tumors was 1.38 ± 0.36 (1.08-1.87) kPa, while for intermediate tumors it was 1.94 ± 0.26 (1.72-2.32) kPa (p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Determination of PMA stiffness is feasible with MRE. There was a statistically significant difference in MRE values between soft and intermediate PMAs. Further study in a larger series is ongoing to determine whether MRE will prove useful in preoperative planning for PMA.
INTRODUCTION: Most pituitary macroadenomas (PMA) are soft and suckable allowing transsphenoidal resection. A small percentage of PMA are firm, which significantly alters the time, technical difficulty, and effectiveness of transsphenoidal surgery. No current imaging technology can reliably assess PMA viscoelastic consistency in preparation for surgery. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is an MRI-based technique that measures the propagation of mechanically induced shear waves through tissue to calculate stiffness. We prospectively evaluated MRE in 10 patients undergoing transsphenoidal resection of PMA to determine feasibility and potential usefulness. METHODS: 10 patients with PMA > 2.0 cm in maximum diameter were prospectively imaged with MRE prior to transsphenoidal surgery. Mean patient age was 59.5 ± 16.2 (22-78) years. Five were female and five male. MRE was performed with a modified single-shot spin-echo echo-planar-imaging pulse sequence on a 3T MRI. MRE values were independently calculated. The surgeon, blinded to the MRE results, graded tumor consistency at surgery as soft, intermediate, or firm. Chi-squared test compared surgical grading and MRE stiffness values. RESULTS: MRE was accomplished in all patients with excellent resolution. By surgical categorization, six tumors were soft and four intermediate. The mean MRE value for soft tumors was 1.38 ± 0.36 (1.08-1.87) kPa, while for intermediate tumors it was 1.94 ± 0.26 (1.72-2.32) kPa (p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Determination of PMA stiffness is feasible with MRE. There was a statistically significant difference in MRE values between soft and intermediate PMAs. Further study in a larger series is ongoing to determine whether MRE will prove useful in preoperative planning for PMA.
Entities:
Keywords:
Consistency; MRE; Magnetic resonance elastography; Pituitary macroadenoma; Stiffness
Authors: J Yamamoto; S Kakeda; S Shimajiri; M Takahashi; K Watanabe; Y Kai; J Moriya; Y Korogi; S Nishizawa Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Matthew C Murphy; John Huston; Kevin J Glaser; Armando Manduca; Fredric B Meyer; Giuseppe Lanzino; Jonathan M Morris; Joel P Felmlee; Richard L Ehman Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2012-10-19 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Matthew C Murphy; John Huston; Clifford R Jack; Kevin J Glaser; Matthew L Senjem; Jun Chen; Armando Manduca; Joel P Felmlee; Richard L Ehman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240
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: Jonathan M Scott; KowsalyaDevi Pavuluri; Joshua D Trzasko; Armando Manduca; Matthew L Senjem; John Huston; Richard L Ehman; Matthew C Murphy Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Salomon Cohen-Cohen; Ahmed Helal; Ziying Yin; Matthew K Ball; Richard L Ehman; Jamie J Van Gompel; John Huston Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 5.408
Authors: Adomas Bunevicius; Katharina Schregel; Ralph Sinkus; Alexandra Golby; Samuel Patz Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-11-23 Impact factor: 4.881