N Sakai1, Y Takehara2, S Yamashita3, N Ohishi2, H Kawaji4, T Sameshima4, S Baba5, H Sakahara3, H Namba4. 1. From the Departments of Neurosurgery (N.S., H.K., T.S., H.N.) nsakaineurosurg@gmail.com. 2. Radiology (Y.T., N.O.). 3. Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (S.Y., H.S.). 4. From the Departments of Neurosurgery (N.S., H.K., T.S., H.N.). 5. Diagnostic Pathology (S.B.), Hamamatsu University Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The stiffness of intracranial tumors affects the outcome of tumor removal. We evaluated the stiffness of 4 common intracranial tumors by using MR elastography and tested whether MR elastography had the potential to discriminate firm tumors preoperatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with meningiomas, pituitary adenomas, vestibular schwannomas, and gliomas scheduled for resection were recruited for MR elastography. On the elastogram, the mean and the maximum shear stiffnesses were measured by placing an ROI on the tumor. Blinded to the MR elastography findings, surgeons conducted qualitative intraoperative assessment of tumor consistency by using a 5-point scale. Histopathologic diagnosis was confirmed by using the resected specimens. The mean and maximum shear stiffnesses were compared with histopathologic subtypes, and the intraoperative tumor consistency was graded by the surgeons. RESULTS: The mean and maximum shear stiffnesses were the following: 1.9 ± 0.8 kPa and 3.4 ± 1.5 kPa for meningiomas, 1.2 ± 0.3 kPa and 1.8 ± 0.5 kPa for pituitary adenomas, 2.0 ± 0.4 kPa and 2.7 ± 0.8 kPa for vestibular schwannomas, and 1.5 ± 0.2 kPa and 2.7 ± 0.8 kPa for gliomas. The mean and maximum shear stiffnesses for meningiomas were higher than those of pituitary adenomas (P < .05). The mean and maximum shear stiffnesses were significantly correlated with the surgeon's qualitative assessment of tumor consistency (P < .05). The maximum shear stiffness for 5 firm tumors was higher than that of nonfirm tumors (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: MR elastography could evaluate intracranial tumors on the basis of their physical property of shear stiffness. MR elastography may be useful in discriminating firm tumors preoperatively.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The stiffness of intracranial tumors affects the outcome of tumor removal. We evaluated the stiffness of 4 common intracranial tumors by using MR elastography and tested whether MR elastography had the potential to discriminate firm tumors preoperatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with meningiomas, pituitary adenomas, vestibular schwannomas, and gliomas scheduled for resection were recruited for MR elastography. On the elastogram, the mean and the maximum shear stiffnesses were measured by placing an ROI on the tumor. Blinded to the MR elastography findings, surgeons conducted qualitative intraoperative assessment of tumor consistency by using a 5-point scale. Histopathologic diagnosis was confirmed by using the resected specimens. The mean and maximum shear stiffnesses were compared with histopathologic subtypes, and the intraoperative tumor consistency was graded by the surgeons. RESULTS: The mean and maximum shear stiffnesses were the following: 1.9 ± 0.8 kPa and 3.4 ± 1.5 kPa for meningiomas, 1.2 ± 0.3 kPa and 1.8 ± 0.5 kPa for pituitary adenomas, 2.0 ± 0.4 kPa and 2.7 ± 0.8 kPa for vestibular schwannomas, and 1.5 ± 0.2 kPa and 2.7 ± 0.8 kPa for gliomas. The mean and maximum shear stiffnesses for meningiomas were higher than those of pituitary adenomas (P < .05). The mean and maximum shear stiffnesses were significantly correlated with the surgeon's qualitative assessment of tumor consistency (P < .05). The maximum shear stiffness for 5 firm tumors was higher than that of nonfirm tumors (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: MR elastography could evaluate intracranial tumors on the basis of their physical property of shear stiffness. MR elastography may be useful in discriminating firm tumors preoperatively.
Authors: Philippe Garteiser; Ramin S Sahebjavaher; Leon C Ter Beek; Septimiu Salcudean; Valérie Vilgrain; Bernard E Van Beers; Ralph Sinkus Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 4.044
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: Jennifer H Hammel; Jonathan M Zatorski; Sophie R Cook; Rebecca R Pompano; Jennifer M Munson Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 15.470
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: K M Pepin; K P McGee; A Arani; D S Lake; K J Glaser; A Manduca; I F Parney; R L Ehman; J Huston Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Katharina Schregel; Navid Nazari; Michal O Nowicki; Miklos Palotai; Sean E Lawler; Ralph Sinkus; Paul E Barbone; Samuel Patz Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: T Takamura; U Motosugi; M Ogiwara; Y Sasaki; K J Glaser; R L Ehman; H Kinouchi; H Onishi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Adomas Bunevicius; Katharina Schregel; Ralph Sinkus; Alexandra Golby; Samuel Patz Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-11-23 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Alberto Acitores Cancela; Víctor Rodríguez Berrocal; Héctor Pian; Juan Salvador Martínez San Millán; Juan José Díez; Pedro Iglesias Journal: Hormones (Athens) Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 2.885