Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 152, Issue 8, pp 1315–1319 | Cite as

Diffusion-weighted imaging does not predict histological grading in meningiomas

  • Luca Santelli
  • Gaetano Ramondo
  • Alessandro Della Puppa
  • Mario Ermani
  • Renato Scienza
  • Domenico d’AvellaEmail author
  • Renzo Manara
Clinical Article



This study aims to verify the reliability of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements to differentiate benign from atypical/malignant meningiomas and among different sub-types.


Pre-operative DWI of 102 patients (74 females, mean age 58 years, age range 34–85 years) affected by a pathologically proven intracranial meningioma were retrospectively reviewed. DWI signal intensity of tumors was classified as hypo-, iso- or hyper-intense to grey matter. ADC values and normalised ADCratio (ADCmeningioma/ADCnormal appearing white matter) of the neoplastic tissue (avoiding calcifications and cystic or necrotic areas) were measured by two neuroradiologists unaware of each others’ reading. MRI and histological findings were compared.


Meningiomas were histologically graded as malignant (1%), atypical (21.5%) and benign (77.5%). Meningothelial, transitional and fibrous were the most frequent benign sub-types (44, 16 and 10 cases, respectively). There was no statistical difference between typical and atypical/malignant meningiomas when considering mean ADC values (0.964 ± 0.192 × 10−3 vs 0.923 ± 0.085 × 10−3 cm2/s, p = 0.3 t-Student) or ADCratio (1.266 ± 0.290 vs 1.185 ± 0.115, p = 0.2 t-Student). ADC values or ADCratio did not differ significantly among meningioma sub-types although a nearly significant difference was found between meningothelial and transitional (post hoc analysis p = 0.06). Inter-observer agreement of ADC and ADCratio measurements was high (r = 0.95 and 0.92, respectively, Pearson’s linear coefficient). DWI intensity did not reach a significant correlation with meningioma’s grading (p = 0.08).


According to our study, DWI and ADC measurement do not seem reliable in grading meningiomas or identifying histological sub-types. Hence, these parameters should not be recommended for surgical or treatment planning.


Meningioma DWI ADC Brain MRI Grading 



We thank Mr. Valerio Gerunda for his excellent technical support. This work was supported in part by Grant Ricerca Finalizzata 2008 from Regione Veneto to Prof. d’Avella.


  1. 1.
    Elster AD, Challa VR, Gilbert TH, Richardson DN, Contento JC (1989) Meningiomas: MR and histopathologic features. Radiology 170:857–862PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Engelter ST, Provenzale JM, Petrella JR, DeLong DM, MacFall JR (2000) The effect of aging on the apparent diffusion coefficient of normal-appearing white matter. AJR 175:425–430PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Filippi CG, Edgar MA, Uluğ AM, Prowda JC, Heier LA, Zimmerman RD (2001) Appearance of meningiomas on diffusion-weighted images: correlating diffusion constants with histopathologic findings. AJNR 22:65–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitzek C, Mentzel HJ, Fitzek S, Sauner D, Kaiser WA, Reichenbach JR (2003) Echoplanar diffusion-weighted MRI with intravenous gadolinium-DTPA. Neuroradiology 45:592–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hakyemez B, Yildirim N, Gokalp G, Erdogan C, Parlak M (2006) The contribution of diffusion-weighted MR imaging to distinguishing typical from atypical meningiomas. Neuroradiology 48:513–520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hunsche S, Moseley ME, Stoeter P, Hedehus M (2001) Diffusion-tensor MR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T: initial observations. Radiology 221:550–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karadeniz Bilgili YM, Unal B, Kendi T, Simşir I, Erdal H, Huvaj S, Kara S, Bademci G (2004) The effect of aging on the apparent diffusion coefficient of normal appearing white and gray matter. Tani Girisim Radyol 10:4–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nagar VA, Ye JR, Ng WH, Chan YH, Hui F, Lee CK, Lim CC (2008) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging: diagnosing atypical or malignant meningiomas and detecting tumor dedifferentiation. AJNR 29:1147–1152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ogura A, Hayakawa K, Miyati T, Maeda F (2008) The effect of susceptibility of gadolinium contrast media on diffusion-weighted imaging and the apparent diffusion coefficient. Acad Radiol 15:867–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perry A, Louis DN, Scheithauer BW, Budka H, von Deimling A (2007) Meningiomas. In: Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WK (eds) WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system, 4th edn. IARC, Lyon, pp 164–172Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riemenschneider MJ, Perry A, Reifenberger G (2006) Histological classification and molecular genetics of meningiomas. Lancet Neurol 5:1045–1054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Toh CH, Castillo M, Wong AM, Wei KC, Wong HF, Ng SH, Wan YL (2008) Differentiation between classic and atypical meningiomas with use of diffusion tensor imaging. AJNR 29:1630–1635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yamasaki F, Kurisu K, Satoh K, Arita K, Sugiyama K, Ohtaki M, Takaba J, Tominaga A, Hanaya R, Yoshioka H, Hama S, Ito Y, Kajiwara Y, Yahara K, Saito T, Thohar MA (2005) Apparent diffusion coefficient of human brain tumors at MR imaging. Radiology 235:985–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Santelli
    • 1
  • Gaetano Ramondo
    • 1
  • Alessandro Della Puppa
    • 2
  • Mario Ermani
    • 3
  • Renato Scienza
    • 2
  • Domenico d’Avella
    • 3
    Email author
  • Renzo Manara
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeuroradiologyAzienda Ospedaliera Università di PadovaPadovaItaly
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryAzienda Ospedaliera Università di PadovaPadovaItaly
  3. 3.Academic Neurosurgery, Department of NeurosciencesAzienda Ospedaliera Università di PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations