, Volume 46, Issue 8, pp 642–648 | Cite as

Contribution of dynamic contrast MR imaging to the differentiation between dural metastasis and meningioma

  • S. KremerEmail author
  • S. Grand
  • C. Rémy
  • B. Pasquier
  • A. L. Benabid
  • S. Bracard
  • J. F. Le Bas
Diagnostic Neuroradiology



To determine the perfusion-sensitive characteristics of cerebral dural metastases and compare them with the data on meningiomas.


Twenty-two patients presenting with dural tumor underwent conventional and dynamic susceptibility-contrast MR imaging: breast carcinoma metastases, two patients; colorectal carcinoma metastasis, one patient; lung carcinoma metastasis, one patient; Merkel carcinoma metastasis, one patient; lymphoma, one patient; meningiomas, 16 patients. The imaging characteristics were analyzed using conventional MR imaging. The cerebral blood volume (CBV) maps were obtained for each patient and the relative CBV (rCBV) in different areas was calculated using the ratio between the CBV in the pathological area (CBVp) and in the contralateral white matter (CBVn).


The differentiation between a meningioma and a dural metastasis can be difficult using conventional MR imaging. The rCBVs of lung carcinoma metastasis (1 case: 1.26), lymphoma (1 case: 1.29), breast carcinoma metastasis (2 cases: 1.50,1.56) and rectal carcinoma metastasis (1 case: 3.34) were significantly lower than that of meningiomas (16 cases: mean rCBV = 8.97±4.34, range 4–18). Merkel carcinoma metastasis (1 case: 7.56) showed an elevated rCBV, not different from that of meningiomas.


Dural metastases are sometimes indistinguishable from meningiomas using conventional MR imaging. rCBV mapping can provide additional information by demonstrating a low rCBV which may suggest the diagnosis of metastasis.


Brain Metastases MR perfusion imaging Meningiomas 


  1. 1.
    Simionescu M. Metastatic tumors of the brain: a follow-up study of 195 patients with neurosurgical considerations. J Neurosurg 1960; 17:361–373.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson MD, Powell S, Boyer P, Weil R, Moots P. Dural lesions mimicking meningiomas. Hum Pathol 2002; 33:1211–1226.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khalfallah M, Roche P, Figarrela-Branger D, Malca S, Pellet W. Isolated dural metastasis mimicking meningioma. A case report. Neurochirurgie 1999; 45:250–254.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rumana C, Hess K, Shi W, Sawaya R. Metastatic brain tumors with dural extension. J Neurosurg 1998; 89:552–558.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tagle P, Villanueva P, Torrealba G, Huete I. Intracranial metastasis or meningioma ? An uncommon clinical diagnostic dilemma. Surg Neurol 2002; 58:241–245.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cha S, Knopp E, Johnson G, Wetzel S, Litt A, Zagzag D. Intracranial mass lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted echo-planar perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2002; 223:11–29.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griebel J, Mayr N, De Vries, Knopp MV, Gneiting T, Kremser C, et al. Assessment of tumor microcirculation: a new role of dynamic contrast MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 7:111–119.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pathak AP, Schmainda K, Ward B, Linderman J, Rebro K, Greene A. MR-derived cerebral blood volume maps: issues regarding histological validation and assessment of tumor angiogenesis. Magn Reson Med 2001; 46:735–747.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barbier E, Lamalle L, Decorps M. Methodology of brain perfusion imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 13:496–520.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Provenzale JM, Wang GR, Brenner T, Petrella JR, Sorensen AG. Comparison of permeability in high-grade and low-grade brain tumors using dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178:711–716.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hartmann M, Heiland S, Harting I, Tronnier VM, Sommer C, Ludwig R, et al. Distinguishing of primary cerebral lymphoma from high grade glioma with perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroscience Lett 2003; 338:119–122.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kremer S, Grand S, Remy C, Esteve F, Lefournier V, Pasquier B, et al. Cerebral blood volume mapping by MR imaging in the initial evaluation of brain tumors. J Neuroradiol 2002; 29:105–113.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maeda M, Itoh S, Kimura H, Iwasaki T, Hayashi N, Yamamoto K, et al. Vascularity of meningiomas and neurinomas: assessment with dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163:181–186.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kleihues P, Cavenee W, eds. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the nervous system, 2nd edn. Lyon: International Agency for Research, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosen B, Belliveau J, Vevea J, Brady T. Perfusion imaging with NMR contrast agents. Magn Reson Med 1990; 14:249–265.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheporaitis L, Osborn A, Smirniotopoulos J, Clunie D, Howieson J, D’agostino A. Radiologic-pathologic correlation: intracranial meningioma. Am J Neuroradiol 1992; 13:29–37.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buetow M, Buetow P, Smimiotopoulos J. Typical, atypical, and misleading features in meningioma. Radiographics 1991; 11:1087–1106.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldsher D, Litt A, Pinto R, Bannon K, Kricheff I. Dural “tail” associated with meningiomas on Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR images: characteristics, differential diagnostic value, and possible implications for treatment. Radiology 1990; 176:447–450.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nakau H, Miyazawa T, Tamai S, Tsuchiya K, Shima K, Shirotani T, et al. Pathologic significance of meningeal enhancement (“flare sign”) of meningiomas on MRI. Surg Neurol 1997; 48:584–591.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tokumaru A, O’uchi T, Eguchi T, Kawamoto S, Kokubo T, Suzuki M, et al.. Prominent meningeal enhancement adjacent to meningioma on Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR images: histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1990; 175:431–433.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilms G, Lammens M, Marchal G, Calenbergh FV, Plets C, Van Frayenhoven L, et al.. Thickening of dura surrounding meningiomas: MR features. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1989; 13:763–768.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Quint D, McGillicuddy J. Meningeal metastasis of the cerebellopontine angle demonstrating “dural tail” sign. Can Assoc Radiol J 1994; 45:40–43.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilms G, Lammens M, Marchal G, Demaerel P, Verplancke J, Van Calenbergh F, et al. Prominent dural enhancement adjacent to nonmeningiomatous malignant lesions on contrast-enhanced MR images. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991; 12:761–764.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kremer S, Grand S, Berger F, Hoffmann D, Pasquier B, Remy C, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: differentiating melanoma and renal carcinoma metastases from high-grade astrocytomas and other metastases. Neuroradiology 2003; 45:44–49.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Kremer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • S. Grand
    • 4
    • 5
  • C. Rémy
    • 5
  • B. Pasquier
    • 6
  • A. L. Benabid
    • 2
    • 7
  • S. Bracard
    • 1
  • J. F. Le Bas
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Neuroradiology DepartmentUniversity HospitalNancyFrance
  2. 2.INSERM U318University HospitalGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.Neuroradiology DepartmentCentre Hospitalier et Universitaire de Nancy, Hôpital Neurologique, CO no. 34Nancy CedexFrance
  4. 4.Magnetic Resonance Imaging UnitUniversity HospitalGrenobleFrance
  5. 5.INSERM U438University HospitalGrenobleFrance
  6. 6.Histopathology DepartmentUniversity HospitalGrenobleFrance
  7. 7.Neurosurgery DepartmentUniversity HospitalGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations