Preoperative Assessment of Meningioma Consistency Using a Combination of MR Elastography and DTI

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Riemenschneider MJ,
   2. Perry A,
   3. Reifenberger G

   . Histological classification and molecular genetics of meningiomas. Lancet Neurol 2006;5:1045–54 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70625-1 pmid:17110285

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Ostrom QT,
   2. Cioffi G,
   3. Gittleman H, et al

   . CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2012-2016. Neuro Oncol 2019;21:v1–100 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noz150 pmid:31675094

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Yao A,
   2. Pain M,
   3. Balchandani P, et al

   . Can MRI predict meningioma consistency? A correlation with tumor pathology and systematic review. Neurosurg Rev 2018;41:745–53 doi:10.1007/s10143-016-0801-0 pmid:27873040

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Hoover JM,
   2. Morris JM,
   3. Meyer FB

   . Use of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging T1 and T2 sequences to determine intraoperative meningioma consistency. Surg Neurol Int 2011;2:142 doi:10.4103/2152-7806.85983 pmid:22059137

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Aunan-Diop JS,
   2. Halle B,
   3. Pedersen CB, et al

   . Magnetic resonance elastography in intracranial neoplasms: a scoping review. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2022;31:9–22 doi:10.1097/RMR.0000000000000292 pmid:35225840

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Little KM,
   2. Friedman AH,
   3. Sampson JH, et al

   . Surgical management of petroclival meningiomas: defining resection goals based on risk of neurological morbidity and tumor recurrence rates in 137 patients. Neurosurgery 2005;56:546–59 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000153906.12640.62 pmid:15730581

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Sekhar LN,
   2. Jannetta PJ,
   3. Burkhart LE, et al

   . Meningiomas involving the clivus: a six-year experience with 41 patients. Neurosurgery 1990;27:764–81 doi:10.1227/00006123-199011000-00015 pmid:2259407

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Yin Z,
   2. Lu X,
   3. Cohen Cohen S, et al

   . A new method for quantification and 3D visualization of brain tumor adhesion using slip interface imaging in patients with meningiomas. Eur Radiology 2021;31:5554–64 doi:10.1007/s00330-021-07918-6 pmid:33852045

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Sitthinamsuwan B,
   2. Khampalikit I,
   3. Nunta-Aree S, et al

   . Predictors of meningioma consistency: a study in 243 consecutive cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2012;154:1383–89 doi:10.1007/s00701-012-1427-9 pmid:22743797

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Chen TC,
    2. Zee CS,
    3. Miller CA, et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging and pathological correlates of meningiomas. Neurosurgery 1992;31:1015–21 doi:10.1227/00006123-199212000-00005 pmid:1281915

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Zimmerman RD,
    2. Fleming CA,
    3. Saint-Louis LA, et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging of meningiomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1985;6:149–57 pmid:3920874

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Carpeggiani P,
    2. Crisi G,
    3. Trevisan C

    . MRI of intracranial meningiomas: correlations with histology and physical consistency. Neuroradiology 1993;35:532–36 doi:10.1007/BF00588715 pmid:8232883

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Yamaguchi N,
    2. Kawase T,
    3. Sagoh M, et al

    . Prediction of consistency of meningiomas with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Surg Neurol 1997;48:579–83 doi:10.1016/s0090-3019(96)00439-9 pmid:9400639

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Kashimura H,
    2. Inoue T,
    3. Ogasawara K, et al

    . Prediction of meningioma consistency using fractional anisotropy value measured by magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 2007;107:784–87 doi:10.3171/JNS-07/10/0784 pmid:17937223

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Shiroishi MS,
    2. Cen SY,
    3. Tamrazi B, et al

    . Predicting meningioma consistency on preoperative neuroimaging studies. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2016;27:145–54 doi:10.1016/j.nec.2015.11.007 pmid:27012379

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Romani R,
    2. Tang WJ,
    3. Mao Y, et al

    . Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging for predicting the consistency of intracranial meningiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014;156:1837–45 doi:10.1007/s00701-014-2149-y pmid:25002281

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Shi Y,
    2. Huo Y,
    3. Pan C, et al

    . Use of magnetic resonance elastography to gauge meningioma intratumoral consistency and histotype. Neuroimage Clin 2022;36:103173 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103173 pmid:36081257

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Murphy MC,
    2. Huston J, 3rd.,
    3. Glaser KJ, et al

    . Preoperative assessment of meningioma stiffness using magnetic resonance elastography. J Neurosurg 2013;118:643–48 doi:10.3171/2012.9.JNS12519 pmid:23082888

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Muthupillai R,
    2. Lomas DJ,
    3. Rossman PJ, et al

    . Magnetic resonance elastography by direct visualization of propagating acoustic strain waves. Science 1995;269:1854–57 doi:10.1126/science.7569924 pmid:7569924

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Sack I

    . Magnetic resonance elastography from fundamental soft-tissue mechanics to diagnostic imaging. Nat Rev Phys 2022;5:25–42 doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00543-2

    CrossRef
21. 21.↵
    1. Bunevicius A,
    2. Schregel K,
    3. Sinkus R, et al

    . REVIEW: MR elastography of brain tumors. Neuroimage Clin 2020;25:102109 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102109 pmid:31809993

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Sinkus R,
    2. Tanter M,
    3. Catheline S, et al

    . Imaging anisotropic and viscous properties of breast tissue by magnetic resonance-elastography. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:372–87 doi:10.1002/mrm.20355 pmid:15678538

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. McKnight AL,
    2. Kugel JL,
    3. Rossman PJ, et al

    . MR elastography of breast cancer: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:1411–17 doi:10.2214/ajr.178.6.1781411 pmid:12034608

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Kemper J,
    2. Sinkus R,
    3. Lorenzen J, et al

    . MR elastography of the prostate: initial in-vivo application. Rofo 2004;176:1094–99 doi:10.1055/s-2004-813279 pmid:15346284

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Rouviere O,
    2. Yin M,
    3. Dresner MA, et al

    . MR elastography of the liver: preliminary results. Radiology 2006;240:440–48 doi:10.1148/radiol.2402050606 pmid:16864671

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    1. Ghatas MP,
    2. Khan MR,
    3. Gorgey AS

    . Skeletal muscle stiffness as measured by magnetic resonance elastography after chronic spinal cord injury: a cross-sectional pilot study. Neural Regen Res 2021;16:2486–93 doi:10.4103/1673-5374.313060 pmid:33907038

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Xu L,
    2. Lin Y,
    3. Han JC, et al

    . Magnetic resonance elastography of brain tumors: preliminary results. Acta Radiology 2007;48:327–30 doi:10.1080/02841850701199967 pmid:17453505

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    1. Murphy MC,
    2. Huston J, 3rd.,
    3. Ehman RL

    . MR elastography of the brain and its application in neurological diseases. Neuroimage 2019;187:176–83 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.008 pmid:28993232

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Hughes JD,
    2. Fattahi N,
    3. Van Gompel J, et al

    . Higher-resolution magnetic resonance elastography in meningiomas to determine intratumoral consistency. Neurosurgery 2015;77:653–58 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000892 pmid:26197204

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Sakai N,
    2. Takehara Y,
    3. Yamashita S, et al

    . Shear stiffness of 4 common intracranial tumors measured using MR elastography: comparison with intraoperative consistency grading. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1851–59 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4832 pmid:27339950

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    1. Aunan-Diop JS,
    2. Andersen MCS,
    3. Friismose AI, et al

    . Virtual magnetic resonance elastography predicts the intraoperative consistency of meningiomas. J Neuroradiol 2023;50:396–401 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2022.10.006 pmid:36343849

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Manduca A,
    2. Bayly PJ,
    3. Ehman RL, et al

    . MR elastography: principles, guidelines, and terminology. Magn Reson Med 2021;85:2377–90 doi:10.1002/mrm.28627 pmid:33296103

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Louis DN,
    2. Perry A,
    3. Wesseling P, et al

    . The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Neuro Oncol 2021;23:1231–51 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noab106 pmid:34185076

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Yushkevich PA,
    2. Piven J,
    3. Hazlett HC, et al

    . User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 2006;31:1116–28 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015 pmid:16545965

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    1. Watanabe K,
    2. Kakeda S,
    3. Yamamoto J, et al

    . Prediction of hard meningiomas: quantitative evaluation based on the magnetic resonance signal intensity. Acta Radiology 2016;57:333–40 doi:10.1177/0284185115578323 pmid:25824207

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Georgiades CS,
    2. Itoh R,
    3. Golay X, et al

    . MR imaging of the human brain at 1.5 T: regional variations in transverse relaxation rates in the cerebral cortex. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1732–37

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
37. 37.↵
    1. Ortega-Porcayo LA,
    2. Ballesteros-Zebadúa P,
    3. Marrufo-Meléndez OR, et al

    . Prediction of mechanical properties and subjective consistency of meningiomas using T1-T2 assessment versus fractional anisotropy. World Neurosurg 2015;84:1691–98 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.07.018 pmid:26188185

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Qiu S,
    2. Jiang W,
    3. Alam MS, et al

    . Viscoelastic characterization of injured brain tissue after controlled cortical impact (CCI) using a mouse model. J Neurosci Methods 2020;330:108463 doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2019.108463 pmid:31698000

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Chen L,
    2. Chen J,
    3. Qiu S, et al

    . Biodegradable nanoagents with short biological half-life for SPECT/PAI/MRI multimodality imaging and PTT therapy of tumors. Small Epub ahead of print December 1, 2017. doi:10.1002/smll.201702700

    CrossRef
40. 40.↵
    1. Gandhe AJ,
    2. Hill DL,
    3. Studholme C, et al

    . Combined and three-dimensional rendered multimodal data for planning cranial base surgery: a prospective evaluation. Neurosurgery 1994;35:463–71 doi:10.1097/00006123-199409000-00015

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
41. 41.↵
    1. Liu X,
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Han T, et al

    . Preoperative surgical risk assessment of meningiomas: a narrative review based on MRI radiomics. Neurosurg Rev 2022;46:29 doi:10.1007/s10143-022-01937-7 pmid:36576657

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Zhai Y,
    2. Song D,
    3. Yang F, et al

    . Preoperative prediction of meningioma consistency via machine learning-based radiomics. Front Oncol 2021;11:657288 doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.657288 pmid:34123812

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Zada G,
    2. Yashar P,
    3. Robison A, et al

    . A proposed grading system for standardizing tumor consistency of intracranial meningiomas. Neurosurg Focus 2013;35:E1 doi:10.3171/2013.8.FOCUS13274 pmid:24289117

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    1. Takamura T,
    2. Motosugi U,
    3. Ogiwara M, et al

    . Relationship between shear stiffness measured by MR elastography and perfusion metrics measured by perfusion CT of meningiomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:1216–22 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7117 pmid:33985944

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
45. 45.↵
    1. Della Pepa GM,
    2. Menna G,
    3. Stifano V, et al

    . Predicting meningioma consistency and brain-meningioma interface with intraoperative strain ultrasound elastography: a novel application to guide surgical strategy. Neurosurg Focus 2021;50:E15 doi:10.3171/2020.10.FOCUS20797 pmid:33386015

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    1. Abramczyk H,
    2. Imiela A

    . The biochemical, nanomechanical and chemometric signatures of brain cancer. Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 2018;188:8–19 doi:10.1016/j.saa.2017.06.037 pmid:28688336

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    1. Cieśluk M,
    2. Pogoda K,
    3. Deptuła P, et al

    . Nanomechanics and histopathology as diagnostic tools to characterize freshly removed human brain tumors. Int J Nanomedicine 2020;15:7509–21 doi:10.2147/IJN.S270147 pmid:33116485

    CrossRefPubMed