Differentiating intracranial solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma from meningioma using diffusion-weighted imaging and susceptibility-weighted imaging
- 38 Downloads
Intracranial solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma (SFT/HPC) and meningioma are difficult to distinguish owing to their overlapping imaging manifestation on routine magnetic resonance imaging. The purpose of this study was to assess whether SFT/HPC can be differentiated from meningioma with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI).
We retrospectively reviewed DWI, SWI, conventreional MR, and CT imaging features of 16 patients with SFT/HPC and 96 patients with meningioma. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value, normalized ADC (nADC) value, and degree of intratumoral susceptibility signal intensity (ITSS) were compared between SFT/HPCs and meningiomas using two-sample t tests, and among SFT/HPCs, low-grade and high-grade meningioma were tested using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the differentiation capacity.
The ADC value, nADC value, and the degree of ITSS in SFT/HPC were significantly higher than those in low-grade and high-grade meningiomas (all p < 0.05). The threshold value of > 1.15 for nADC provided 75.00% sensitivity and 60.42% specificity for differentiating SFT/HPC from meningioma. Compared with nADC, the degree of ITSS had a moderate sensitivity (62.50%) and a higher specificity (85.42%) using the threshold value of > 1.00. Furthermore, combining DWI and SWI can achieve a relatively high differentiation capacity with a sensitivity of 81.25% and specificity of 78.12%.
The nADC ratios and ITSS are useful for differentiating SFT/HPC from meningioma. Combining ITSS and nADC value appears to be a promising option for differential diagnosis.
KeywordsIntracranial solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma Meningioma Diffusion-weighted imaging Susceptibility-weighted imaging
This work was funded by the Leading Project of the Department of Science and Technology of Fujian Province (No. 2016Y0042).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, Figarella-Branger D, Cavenee WK, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Kleihues P, Ellison DW (2016) The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 131(6):803–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Ratneswaren T, Hogg FRA, Gallagher MJ, Ashkan K (2018) Surveillance for metastatic hemangiopericytoma-solitary fibrous tumors-systematic literature review on incidence, predictors and diagnosis of extra-cranial disease. J Neuro-Oncol 138(3):447–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-018-2836-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Sung KS, Moon JH, Kim EH, Kang SG, Kim SH, Suh CO, Kim SH, Lee KS, Chang WS, Chang JH (2018) Solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma: treatment results based on the 2016 WHO classification. J Neurosurg:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.9.jns171057
- 9.Rutkowski MJ, Jian BJ, Bloch O, Chen C, Sughrue ME, Tihan T, Barani IJ, Berger MS, McDermott MW, Parsa AT (2012) Intracranial hemangiopericytoma: clinical experience and treatment considerations in a modern series of 40 adult patients. Cancer 118(6):1628–1636. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.26411 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.He W, Xiao X, Li X, Guo Y, Guo L, Liu X, Xu Y, Zhou J, Wu Y (2019) Whole-tumor histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating intracranial solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma from angiomatous meningioma. Eur J Radiol 112:186–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.01.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kanazawa T, Minami Y, Jinzaki M, Toda M, Yoshida K, Sasaki H (2018) Preoperative prediction of solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma and angiomatous meningioma using magnetic resonance imaging texture analysis. World Neurosurg 120:e1208–e1216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.09.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Kim HS, Jahng GH, Ryu CW, Kim SY (2009) Added value and diagnostic performance of intratumoral susceptibility signals in the differential diagnosis of solitary enhancing brain lesions: preliminary study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 30(8):1574–1579. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1635 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Saini J, Gupta PK, Sahoo P, Singh A, Patir R, Ahlawat S, Beniwal M, Thennarasu K, Santosh V, Gupta RK (2018) Differentiation of grade II/III and grade IV glioma by combining “T1 contrast-enhanced brain perfusion imaging” and susceptibility-weighted quantitative imaging. Neuroradiology 60(1):43–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-017-1942-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Park MJ, Kim HS, Jahng GH, Ryu CW, Park SM, Kim SY (2009) Semiquantitative assessment of intratumoral susceptibility signals using non-contrast-enhanced high-field high-resolution susceptibility-weighted imaging in patients with gliomas: comparison with MR perfusion imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 30(7):1402–1408. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1593 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Schmeel FC (2018) Variability in quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) across different scanners and imaging sites: is there a potential consensus that can help reducing the limits of expected bias? Eur Radiol 29(5):2243–2245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5866-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Pinker K, Noebauer-Huhmann IM, Stavrou I, Hoeftberger R, Szomolanyi P, Karanikas G, Weber M, Stadlbauer A, Knosp E, Friedrich K, Trattnig S (2007) High-resolution contrast-enhanced, susceptibility-weighted MR imaging at 3 T in patients with brain tumors: correlation with positron-emission tomography and histopathologic findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28(7):1280–1286. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A0540 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Di Ieva A, Le Reste PJ, Carsin-Nicol B, Ferre JC, Cusimano MD (2016) Diagnostic Value of Fractal Analysis for the Differentiation of Brain Tumors Using 3-Tesla Magnetic Resonance Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging. Neurosurgery 79(6):839–846. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001308 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Zhang S, Chiang GC, Knapp JM, Zecca CM, He D, Ramakrishna R, Magge RS, Pisapia DJ, Fine HA, Tsiouris AJ, Zhao Y, Heier LA, Wang Y, Kovanlikaya I (2019) Grading meningiomas utilizing multiparametric MRI with inclusion of susceptibility weighted imaging and quantitative susceptibility mapping. J Neuroradiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurad.2019.05.002
- 37.Arai N, Mizutani K, Takahashi S, Morimoto Y, Akiyama T, Horiguchi T, Mami H, Yoshida K (2018) Preoperative assessment of pathologic subtypes of meningioma and solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma using dynamic computed tomography: a clinical research study. World Neurosurg 115:e676–e680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.04.132 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar