Arian Lasocki1,2, Chloe Khoo3, Peter K H Lau3, David L Kok4,5, Grant A Mcarthur2,3. 1. Department of Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite classic teaching that intracranial metastases typically arise at the gray-white matter junction, small intracranial melanoma metastases (IMM) are frequently observed at the interface between the cortex and leptomeninges (ie, "corticomeningeal interface"), suggesting possible leptomeningeal origin. METHODS: MRI brain examinations of melanoma patients treated at a specialist oncology center from July 2015 to June 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The MRI examination on which IMM were first visible was identified, utilizing 1 mm volumetric postcontrast imaging prior to local therapy. Individual metastases (up to 10 per patient) were assessed for the presence of leptomeningeal contact, as well as their number, size, and morphology. Lesions ≥10 mm in long axis were excluded, in order to examine early metastatic disease. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients had evidence of IMM. Fifteen patients had only lesion(s) measuring ≥10 mm at diagnosis, leaving 60 patients. One hundred ninety-two individual metastases were examined (median 2 per patient; interquartile range, 1-4), 174 (91%) demonstrating leptomeningeal contact. A nodular morphology was observed in 154 of 192 (82%), 32 (17%) were ovoid but elongated along the cortex, and 6 (3%) were linear. Only 3 patients (5%) also exhibited a "classic" linear leptomeningeal disease appearance. CONCLUSIONS: Most IMM measuring between 2 and 9 mm in diameter are corticomeningeal nodules. These data raise the hypothesis that deeper parenchymal extension of IMM occurs secondarily. If the leptomeninges provide a preferential site for establishment of IMM, further investigation of the underlying biology of this phenomenon may provide opportunities for novel therapeutic strategies for patients with IMM.
BACKGROUND: Despite classic teaching that intracranial metastases typically arise at the gray-white matter junction, small intracranial melanoma metastases (IMM) are frequently observed at the interface between the cortex and leptomeninges (ie, "corticomeningeal interface"), suggesting possible leptomeningeal origin. METHODS: MRI brain examinations of melanomapatients treated at a specialist oncology center from July 2015 to June 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The MRI examination on which IMM were first visible was identified, utilizing 1 mm volumetric postcontrast imaging prior to local therapy. Individual metastases (up to 10 per patient) were assessed for the presence of leptomeningeal contact, as well as their number, size, and morphology. Lesions ≥10 mm in long axis were excluded, in order to examine early metastatic disease. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients had evidence of IMM. Fifteen patients had only lesion(s) measuring ≥10 mm at diagnosis, leaving 60 patients. One hundred ninety-two individual metastases were examined (median 2 per patient; interquartile range, 1-4), 174 (91%) demonstrating leptomeningeal contact. A nodular morphology was observed in 154 of 192 (82%), 32 (17%) were ovoid but elongated along the cortex, and 6 (3%) were linear. Only 3 patients (5%) also exhibited a "classic" linear leptomeningeal disease appearance. CONCLUSIONS: Most IMM measuring between 2 and 9 mm in diameter are corticomeningeal nodules. These data raise the hypothesis that deeper parenchymal extension of IMM occurs secondarily. If the leptomeninges provide a preferential site for establishment of IMM, further investigation of the underlying biology of this phenomenon may provide opportunities for novel therapeutic strategies for patients with IMM.
Authors: B Küsters; J R Westphal; D Smits; D J Ruiter; P Wesseling; U Keilholz; R M de Waal Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2001-04-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: G A McArthur; M Maio; A Arance; P Nathan; C Blank; M-F Avril; C Garbe; A Hauschild; D Schadendorf; O Hamid; M Fluck; M Thebeau; J Schachter; R Kefford; M Chamberlain; M Makrutzki; S Robson; R Gonzalez; K Margolin Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Dieta Brandsma; Martin J B Taphoorn; Jaap C Reijneveld; Thomas M Nas; Emile E Voest; Klaas Nicolay; Erwin Blezer Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Peter Kar Han Lau; Breon Feran; Lorey Smith; Arian Lasocki; Ramyar Molania; Kortnye Smith; Alison Weppler; Christopher Angel; Damien Kee; Prachi Bhave; Belinda Lee; Richard J Young; Amir Iravani; Hanxian Aw Yeang; Ismael A Vergara; David Kok; Kate Drummond; Paul Joseph Neeson; Karen E Sheppard; Tony Papenfuss; Benjamin J Solomon; Shahneen Sandhu; Grant A McArthur Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 12.469