ABSTRACT
Objectives:
MRI features of intracranial meningiomas may guide in terms of invasion and histopathological grades. The aim of this study is to evaluate the MRI features of meningiomas with dural invasion and grade 1 and 2 menengiomas.
Materials and Methods:
Seventy patients with preoperative MRI included to the study. WHO grades, precence of dura invasion, size, contact angle with dura, contact surface lenght, relationship with sutures, diffusion and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, presence of peritumoral edema, enhancement, contours and adjacent bone changes were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were divided into groups in terms of presence of histopathological dura invasion and WHO grades. Histopathological features and MRI findings were compared between the groups.
Results:
For WHO grades and MRI findings there were no statistically significant difference between meningiomas with and without dura invasion (p>0.05). Percentages of presence of the following parameters were significantly higher in grade 2 meningiomas: Diffusion restriction (p=0.038), localisation near a suture (p=0.010), peritumoral edema (p=0.006), heterogenous enhancement (p=0.027), lobulated contour of parenchymal surface (p=0.002) and adjacent bone scalloping (p=0.029). Anteroposterior (p=0.003) and craniocaudal (p=0.047) lenght of lesions, contact surface lenght (p=0.015) and mean age (p=0,030) were significantly higher in grade 2 meningiomas.
Conclusion:
In the differentiation of grade 1 and 2 menengiomas, besides the ADC values, and peritumoral edema; adjacent bone scalloping, contact surface lenght, heterogenous enhancement and localisation near the sutures may also help. For dura invasion there is no significant MRI finding.
Keywords:
Meningeal Neoplasms, Intracranial Meningioma, Magnetic Resonance Imaging
References
1Torp SH, Solheim O, Skjulsvik AJ. The WHO 2021 Classification of Central Nervous System tumours: a practical update on what neurosurgeons need to know-a minireview. Acta Neurochir. 2022;164:2453-2464.
2Lee J, Lee YS, Ahn KJ, et al. The importance of interface irregularity between the tumor and brain parenchyma in differentiating between typical and atypical meningiomas: Correlation with pathology. iMRI. 2016;20:158-166.
3Hale AT, Wang L, Strother MK, et al. Differentiating meningioma grade by imaging features on magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;48:71-75.
4Utomo SA, Andriani FR. Does tumor size, peritumoral edema, location and necrosis can be used to predict grading of meningioma? Int J Radiol Radiat Ther. 2019;6:195-198.
5Toh CH, Castillo M, Wong AMC, et al. Differentiation between classic and atypical meningiomas with use of diffusion tensor imaging. Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:1630-1635.
6Kunimatsu A, Kunimatsu N, Kamiya K, Katsura M, Mori H, Ohtomo K. Variants of meningiomas: a review of imaging findings and clinical features. Jpn J Radiol. 2016;34:459-469.
7Watts J, Box G, Galvin A, Brotchie P, Trost N. Magnetic resonance imaging og meningiomas: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2014;5:113-122.
8Naseruddin VSK, Devi BV, Prasad BCM, Rukmangada N, Lakshmi AY. Differentiation of typical from atypical and malignant meningiomas using diffusion weigted magnetic resonance imaging. JCSR. 2017;6:80-88.
9Azeemuddin M, Nizamani WM, Tariq MU, Wasay M. Role of ADC values and ratios of MRI scan in differentiating typical from atypical/anaplastic meningiomas. J Pak Med Assoc. 2018;68:1403-1406.
10Hutzelmann A, Palmie S, Buhl R, Freund M, Heller M. Dural invasion of meningiomas adjacent to the tumor margin on Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR images: histopathologic correlation. Eur Radiol. 1998;8:746-748.
