The relationship between molecular subtypes and MR perfusion in patients with brain meningioma

Amirjamshidi, Abbas; Jafarpor, Ali; Ghadirian, Hesam; Porrashidi, Ahmad; Karimi Yarandi, Korosh; Farsi, Maryam; Ashhan, Atiyeh

The relationship between molecular subtypes and MR perfusion in patients with brain meningioma

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Abbas Amirjamshidi ¹

Ali Jafarpor ²

Hesam Ghadirian ³

Ahmad Porrashidi ³

Korosh Karimi Yarandi ⁴

Maryam Farsi ⁵

Atiyeh Ashhan ⁶

¹ Professor of Neurosurgery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Sina Hospital, Tehran, Iran

² Assistant, Department of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosurgery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Sina Hospital

³ Assistant Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosurgery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Sina Hospital

⁴ Associate Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosurgery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Sina Hospital

⁵ Expert, Imaging Center, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences

⁶ Medical Student, Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Abstract

Background and Objective: Meningiomas are the most common primary brain tumors, accounting for 15 to 20% of all primary brain tumors. Differentiating between malignant and benign meningiomas before surgery is essential for treatment planning and prognostic assessment. One proposed method for differentiating malignant from benign meningiomasis magnetic resonance perfusion (MR perfusion), but limited studies have been conducted in this respect. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the relationship between molecular subtypes and MR perfusion in patients with meningiomas.
Materials & Methods: In this cross-sectional study, all patients with brainmeningiomas referred to Sina Hospital in Tehran between 2021 and 2024 were evaluated prospectively. MR perfusion was done for patients. After brain surgery, pathological samples were obtained from the patients, and in addition to determining the conventional tumor grade, molecular studies including Ki-67, EGFR amplification, and S100 were performed by the pathologist, and the results were recorded. The relationship between MR perfusion parameters (relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF), and mean transit time) with tumor-related data was assessed. The significance level was considered less than 0.05.
Results: Twenty-five patients were studied. The mean age was 55.08±12.07 years, and 17 patients (68%) were female. The most common presentation (76%) was headache. The findings showed that rCBV and rCBF were statistically significantly different between low-grade and high-grade tumors (P-values < 0.05). Although the calculated cut-offs for rCBV and rCBF (7.55 and 6.94, respectively) were useful for differentiating the different grades of disease, neither was statistically significant (P-value: 0.05 and P-value: 0.1, respectively). Also, patients with higher Ki67 levels had higher rCBV and rCBF (P-value < 0.05 for both).
Conclusion: MR perfusion values (rCBV and rCBF) have statistically significant differences between different grades of meningioma.

Keywords

Benign Meningiomas

Magnetic resonance imaging

Meningioma

Malignant Meningiomas

1. Alyamany M, Alshardan M, Jamea A, ElBakry N, Soualmi L, Orz Y. Meningioma consistency: Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging characteristics, operative findings, and histopathological features. Asian journal of neurosurgery. 2018; 13(02): 324-8.

2. Dolecek TA, Propp JM, Stroup NE, Kruchko C. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2005–2009. Neuro-oncology. 2012; 14 (suppl-5): v1-v49.

3. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, Von Deimling A, Figarella-Branger D, Cavenee WK, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta neuropathologica. 2016; 131: 803-20.

4. Hanft S, Canoll P, Bruce JN. A review of malignant meningiomas: diagnosis, characteristics, and treatment. Journal of neuro-oncology. 2010; 99:
433-43.

5. Huang RY, Bi WL, Griffith B, Kaufmann TJ, la Fougère C, Schmidt NO, et al. Imaging and diagnostic advances for intracranial meningiomas. Neuro-oncology. 2019; 21 (Supplement_1): i44-i61.

6. Watts J, Box G, Galvin A, Brotchie P, Trost N, Sutherland T. Magnetic resonance imaging of meningiomas: a pictorial review. Insights into imaging. 2014; 5: 113-22.

7. Mehdorn HM. Intracranial meningiomas: a 30-year experience and literature review. Advances and Technical Standards in Neurosurgery: Volume 43. 2016: 139-84.

8. Shiroishi MS, Castellazzi G, Boxerman JL,
D'Amore F, Essig M, Nguyen TB, et al. Principles of T2*-weighted dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI technique in brain tumor imaging. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging. 2015; 41(2): 296-313.

9. Shiroishi M, Habibi M, Rajderkar D, Yurko C, Go J, Lerner A, et al. Perfusion and permeability
MR imaging of gliomas. Technology in cancer research & treatment. 2011; 10(1): 59-71.

10. Essig M, Shiroishi MS, Nguyen TB, Saake M, Provenzale JM, Enterline D, et al. Perfusion MRI: The five most frequently asked technical questions. American journal of roentgenology. 2013; 200(1):
24-34.

11. Zampini MA, Buizza G, Paganelli C, Fontana G, D’Ippolito E, Valvo F, et al. Perfusion and diffusion in meningioma tumors: a preliminary multiparametric analysis with dynamic susceptibility contrast and intravoxel incoherent motion MRI. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2020; 67: 69-78.

12. Togao O, Hiwatashi A, Yamashita K, Kikuchi K, Momosaka D, Yoshimoto K, et al. Measurement of the perfusion fraction in brain tumors with intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging: validation with histopathological vascular density in meningiomas. The British Journal of Radiology. 2018; 91(1085): 20170912.

13. Eissa L, Gamaleldin O, Khalifa MH. Grading of skull base meningiomas by combined perfusion: arterial spin labeling and T2* dynamic susceptibility perfusion. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2024; 55(1): 105.

14. Qiao XJ, Kim HG, Wang DJ, Salamon N, Linetsky M, Sepahdari A, et al. Application of arterial spin labeling perfusion MRI to differentiate benign from malignant intracranial meningiomas. European journal of radiology. 2017; 97: 31-6.

15. Rohilla S, Garg HK, Singh I, Yadav RK, Dhaulakhandi DB. rCBV-and ADC-based grading of meningiomas with glimpse into emerging molecular diagnostics. Basic and clinical neuroscience. 2018; 9(6): 417.

16. Lanzman B, Heit JJ. Advanced MRI measures of cerebral perfusion and their clinical applications. Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2017; 26(2): 83-90.

17. Jahng G-H, Li K-L, Ostergaard L, Calamante F. Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: a comprehensive update on principles and techniques. Korean journal of radiology. 2. 77-554: (5) 15; 014.

18. Pond J, Morgan T, Hatanpaa K, Yetkin Z, Mickey B, Mendelsohn D. Chordoid meningioma: differentiating a rare World Health Organization grade II tumor from other meningioma histologic subtypes using MRI. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2015; 36(7): 1253-8.

19. Priola AM, Priola SM, Gned D, Piacibello E, Sardo D, Parvis G, et al. Diffusion-weighted quantitative MRI to diagnose benign conditions from malignancies of the anterior mediastinum: Improvement of diagnostic accuracy by comparing perfusion-free to perfusion-sensitive measurements of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2016; 44(3): 758-69.

20. Henzler T, Schmid-Bindert G, Schoenberg SO, Fink C. Diffusion and perfusion MRI of the lung and mediastinum. European journal of radiology. 2010; 76(3): 329-36.

21. Le Bihan D. Diffusion, confusion and functional MRI. Neuroimage. 2012; 62(2): 1131-6.

22. Lum MA, Martin AJ, Alexander MD, McCoy DB, Cooke DL, Lillaney P, et al. Intra-arterial
MR perfusion imaging of meningiomas: comparison to digital subtraction angiography and intravenous MR perfusion imaging. Plos one. 2016; 11(11): e0163554.

23. Vranic A, Popovic M, Cör A, Prestor B,
Pizem J. Mitotic count, brain invasion, and location are independent predictors of recurrence-free survival in primary atypical and malignant meningiomas: a study of 86 patients. Neurosurgery. 2010; 67(4): 1124-32.

24. Oya S, Kawai K, Nakatomi H, Saito N. Significance of Simpson grading system in modern meningioma surgery: integration of the grade with MIB-1 labeling index as a key to predict the recurrence of WHO Grade I meningiomas. Journal of neurosurgery. 2012; 117(1): 121-8.

25. KiM MS, KiM KH, Lee EH, Lee YM, Lee S-H, Kim HD, et al. Results of immunohistochemical staining for cell cycle regulators predict the recurrence of atypical meningiomas. Journal of Neurosurgery. 2014; 121(5): 1189-200.

26. Baumgarten P, Gessler F, Schittenhelm J, Skardelly M, Tews DS, Senft C, et al. Brain invasion in otherwise benign meningiomas does not predict tumor recurrence. Acta neuropathologica. 2016; 132: 479-81.

27. Banan R, Abbetmeier-Basse M, Hong B,
Dumitru CA, Sahm F, Nakamura M, et al.
The prognostic significance of clinicopathological features in meningiomas: microscopic brain
invasion can predict patient outcome in
otherwise benign meningiomas.
Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology. 2021; 47(6): 724-35.

28. Nakasu S, Nakasu Y. Prognostic significance of brain invasion in meningiomas: systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain tumor pathology. 2021; 38(2): 81-95.