Magnetic Resonance Imaging Patterns of Intracranial Meningiomas in Erbil City

Ivan Mawlwd  Mustafa; Aska Faruq  Jamal

doi:10.56056/amj.2023.195

Authors

Ivan Mawlwd Mustafa M.B.Ch.B, KHCMS Trainee, Erbil-Iraq. Kurdistan MOH
Aska Faruq Jamal M.B.Ch.B , C.A.B.R, KHCMS Trainer, Erbil-Iraq. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, HMU

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56056/amj.2023.195

Keywords:

Erbil, Magnetic resonance imaging patterns, Meningioma, Screening, Validity

Abstract

Background and objectives: Meningiomas are the most common non-glial tumors of the central nervous system representing around one fifth of primary intracranial tumors with annual incidence of six per 100,000 populations. This study aimed to address the diagnostic precision of magnetic resonance imaging as a brain investigation tool to evaluate meningioma diagnosis and tumor staging before performing the operation.

Methods: This study designed as a cross-sectional study and carried out between December 2019 and December 2020. A total number of 48 meningiomas resected and evaluated at three public hospitals in Erbil City. Pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging investigation and postoperative histopathological evaluation were done for all patients for their intracranial tumors and tissue sections.

Results: Majority of patients showed isointense pattern on T1 (87.5%) and T2 (85.4%) signal intensity, homogenous in consistency (81.3%), the vast majority of the meningiomas were typical (93.8%) and of meningothelial type (81.3%). In most of the cases, there was no bone involvement (77.1%), no invasion of dural venous sinuses (83.3%), no calcifications (83.3%), no cystic changes (97.9%) but positive cerebral spinal fluid cleft (66.7%) and homogenous enhancement pattern (83.3%). Five out of eleven imaging patterns and configurations including T1 signal intensity, T2 signal intensity, consistency, calcification and vascularity of the meningioma were valid and reliable by calculating their sensitivity, specificity and running kappa test.

Conclusions: Some magnetic resonance imaging patterns such as T1 signal intensity, T2 signal intensity, consistency, calcification, and vascularity of the meningioma are useful for predicting the stages of meningioma.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Toh CH, Castillo M, Wong AM et al. Differentiation between classic and atypical meningiomas with use of diffusion tensor imaging. Am J Neuroradiol. 2008; 29(9): 1630-5. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1170.

Wiemels J, Wrensch M, Claus E B. Epidemiology and etiology of meningioma. J Neurooncol. 2010; 99(3): 307–14.

Watts, J., Box, G., Galvin, A. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of meningiomas: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging, 2014;5(1):113-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-013-0302-4.

Whittle IR, Smith C, Navoo P, Collie D. Meningiomas. Lancet. 2004; 8;363(9420):1535-43. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16153-9.

Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, et al. The 2007 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System. Acta Neuropathol (Berl).2007; 114: 97–109.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4.

Nagar VA, Ye JR, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging: diagnosing atypical or malignant meningiomas and detecting tumor dedifferentiation. Am J Neuroradiol. 2008; 29(6): 1147-52. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A0996.

Sutton D, Kendall B, Steven J. Intracranial lesions (1). In: Sutton D (ed.) Textbook of radiology and imaging, 6th ed., London, Churchill Livingstone, 2003: 1475- 1503.

Boss A, Bisdas S, Kolb A, Hofmann M, et al. Hybrid PET/MRI of intracranial masses: initial experiences and comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2010; 51(8):1198-205.

Chishty IA, Rafique MZ, Hussain M, et al. MRI characterization and histopathological correlation of primary intra-axial brain glioma. J Liaquat Uni Med Health Sci. 2010; 9(2): 64-9.

Goldbrunner R, Minniti G, Preusser M, et al. EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of meningiomas. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(9):383–91.

Nowosielski M, Galldiks N, Iglseder S, et al. Diagnostic challenges in meningioma. Neuro-Oncol. 2017;19(12): 1588–98.

Parmar C, Leijenaar RTH, Grossmann P, et al. Radiomic feature clusters and Prognostic Signatures specific for Lung and Head and Neck cancer. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:11044.

Leijenaar RT, Carvalho S, Hoebers FJ et al. External validation of a prognostic CT-based radiomic signature in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(9):1423-9.

Hwang WL, Ariel E, Marciscano AE, et al. Imaging and extent of surgical resection predict risk of meningioma recurrence better than WHO histopathological grade. Neuro-Oncology. 2016;18(6): 863–87.

Adeli A, Hess K, Mawrin C, et al. Prediction of brain invasion in patients with meningiomas using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Oncotarget. 2018; 9(89): 35974-82.

Huang RH, Bi WL, Griffith B, et al. Imaging and diagnostic advances for intracranial Meningiomas. Neuro Oncol. 2019:14;21(Suppl 1): i44-i61.

Bon-Jour LB, Kuan-Nein CK, Hung-Wen KH, et al. Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging grading and pathological grading in meningioma. J Neurosurg. 2014;121(5):1201-8.

Maillo A, Orfao A, Sayagues JM, et al: New classification scheme for the prognostic stratification of meningioma on the basis of chromosome 14 abnormalities, patient age, and tumor histopathology. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21:3285–95.

Mermanishvili TL, Dzhorbenadze TA, Chachia GG. Association of the degree of differentiation and the mitotic activity of intracranial meningiomas with age and gender. Arkh Patol. 2010; 72:16–8.

Hashiba T, Hashimoto N, Maruno M, et al: Scoring radiologic characteristics to predict proliferative potential in meningiomas. Brain Tumor Pathol. 2006; 23:49–54.

Kane AJ, Sughrue ME, Rutkowski MJ, et al. Anatomic location is a risk factor for atypical and malignant meningiomas. Cancer. 2011; 117:1272–8.

Varlotto J, Flickinger J, Pavelic MT, et al. Distinguishing grade I meningioma from higher grade meningiomas without biopsy. Onco target. 2015; 6(35): 38421–8.

Kawahara Y, Nakada M, Hayashi Y, et al. Prediction of high-grade meningioma by preoperative MRI assessment. J Neurooncol. 2012;108(1):147-52.

Coroller TP, Bi WL, Huynh E, et al. Radiographic prediction of meningioma grade by semantic and radiomic features. PLoS ONE. 2016;12(11):0187908.

Schob S, Frydrychowicz C, Gawlitza M, Bure L, Preuß M, Hoffmann KT. Signal Intensities in Preoperative MRI Do Not Reflect Proliferative Activity in Meningioma. Transl Oncol. 2016; 9(4): 274–9.

Chu H, Lin X, He J, Pang P, Fan B, Lei P. Value of MRI Radiomics Based on Enhanced T1WI Images in Prediction of Meningiomas Grade. Acad Radiol. 2021;28(5):687-93.