Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

The role of apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating typical from atypical meningioma

Abstract

Background: Differentiation of typical from atypical meningiomas would greatly improve surgical planning and further treatment options. Appparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) has the potential to characterize meningioma subtypes. This study aimed to assess the value of ADC in differentiating typical and atypical meningiomas.

Method: A retrospective study was conducted using medical records at RSUD Dr. Soetomo Surabaya in January 2019 – September 2021. ADC values were obtained by placing three ROIs on tumors. We used receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis to determine the optimal cut-off ADC value to differentiate meningioma grading and Mann-Whitney U test to evaluate the difference in ADC values between the two groups. In addition, Chi-square was used to assess the correlation between ADC values and the type of meningioma.

Results: The ADC values in typical meningiomas ranged from 1.12 - 2.47 × 10-3 mm2/s with an average of 1.45 ± 0.38 × 10-3 mm2/s, while in atypical meningiomas ranged from 0.64 – 1.12 × 10-3 mm2/s with an average of 0.81 ± 0.20 × 10-3 mm2/s. Based on ROC analysis to distinguish typical and atypical meningiomas, the cut-off mean ADC value is 1.12 × 10-3 mm2/s with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 96.87%, and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.996. The cut-off difference in the ADC value and the relationship between the ADC value and meningioma type based on histopathology were significant.

Conclusion: Typical meningiomas have higher ADC values than atypical cases. ADC value can help differentiate typical from atypical meningiomas.

References

  1. Watts J, Box G, Galvin A, Brotchie P, Trost N, Sutherland T. Magnetic resonance imaging of meningiomas: A pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2014;5:113–22.
  2. Nowosielski M, Galldiks N, Iglseder S, Kickingereder P, Deimling A Von, Bendszus M, et al. Neuro-Oncology Diagnostic challenges in meningioma. 2017;19:1588–98.
  3. Tamrazi B, Shiroishi MS, Liu CJ. Advanced Imaging Of Intracranial Meningiomas Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2016; 27(2): 137-143.
  4. Watanabe K, Kakeda S, Yamamoto J, Ide S, Ohnari N, Nishizawa S, et al. Prediction of hard meningiomas: Quantitative evaluation based on the magnetic resonance signal intensity. Acta Radiol. 2016;57:333–40.
  5. Huang RY, Bi WL, Griffith B, Kaufmann TJ, La Fougère C, Schmidt NO, et al. Imaging and diagnostic advances for intracranial meningiomas. Neuro Oncol. 2019;21:I44–61.
  6. Surov A, Gottschling S, Mawrin C, Prell J, Spielmann RP. Translational Oncology Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Meningioma : Prediction of Tumor Grade and Association with Histopathological Parameters. Translational Oncology. 2015;8:517–23.
  7. Chidambaram S, Pannullo SC, Roytman M, Pisapia DJ, Liechty B, Magge RS, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging perfusion characteristics in meningiomas treated with resection and adjuvant radiosurgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2019;46:E10.
  8. Bano S, Waraich MM, Khan MA, Buzdar SA, Manzur S. Diagnostic value of apparent diffusion coefficient for the accurate assessment and differentiation of intracranial meningiomas. Acta Radiol Short Reports. 2013;2:204798161351248.
  9. Khedr SA, Hassaan MA, Refaat A. The diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging in patients with meningioma. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2012;43:249–56.
  10. Saloner D, Uzelac A, Hetts S, Martin A, Dillon W. Modern meningioma imaging techniques. J Neurooncol. 2010;99:333–40.
  11. Pavlisa G, Rados M, Pazanin L, Padovan RS, Ozretic D, Pavlisa G. Characteristics of typical and atypical meningiomas on ADC maps with respect to schwannomas. Clin Imaging. 2008;32:22–7.

How to Cite

Utomo, S. A., Bajamal, A. H., Yuyun Yueniwati Prabowowati Wadjib, Haq, I. B. I., Varidha, V. U., & Fauziah, D. (2022). The role of apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating typical from atypical meningioma. Bali Medical Journal, 11(1), 455–459. https://doi.org/10.15562/bmj.v11i1.3244

HTML
0

Total
0

Share

Search Panel

Sri Andreani Utomo
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal


Abdul Hafid Bajamal
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal


Yuyun Yueniwati Prabowowati Wadjib
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal


Irwan Barlian Immadoel Haq
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal


Vivid Umu Varidha
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal


Dyah Fauziah
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal