Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and histopathology agreement for the diagnosis of intracranial meningioma at Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Surabaya, January 2016–December 2021: a single center study

Muhammad Wildan Hakim; Joni Wahyuhadi; Sri Andreani Utomo; Asra Al Fauzi; Muhammad Arifin Parenrengi; Budi Utomo

doi:10.15562/bmj.v12i3.4790

Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and histopathology agreement for the diagnosis of intracranial meningioma at Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Surabaya, January 2016–December 2021: a single center study

Muhammad Wildan Hakim ,

Joni Wahyuhadi ,

Sri Andreani Utomo ,

Asra Al Fauzi ,

Muhammad Arifin Parenrengi ,

Budi Utomo ,

pdf |
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15562/bmj.v12i3.4790 |
Published: 2023-11-07

Abstract

Link of Video Abstract: https://youtu.be/OG7qXwNHzHQ

Background: Meningioma, a prevalent intracranial neoplasm, ranks among the most frequently encountered tumors within the cranial cavity. The utilization of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the diagnostic process of meningioma has proven to be highly valuable. This study aims to evaluate the Conventional-MRI and histopathology agreement for the diagnosis of intracranial meningioma at Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Surabaya.

Methods: This study presents a diagnostic test and retrospective case-control analysis to evaluate the precision of head MRI in diagnosing intracranial meningioma, as confirmed by histopathological examination. The research was conducted at Dr. Soetomo Surabaya General Hospital from January 2016 to December 2021. Sample size calculations were performed on a cohort of patients diagnosed with intracranial meningioma who underwent head magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and histopathological examinations at the Radiology and Anatomical Pathology Installation of Dr. Soetomo General Hospital. Only patients who satisfied the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25.0 for Windows.

Results: At the time of diagnosis, it was observed that the average diameter of grade II/III meningioma was 6.6 ± 1.5 cm, which was found to be greater than the average diameter of grade I meningioma, measuring 4 ± 1.92 cm. The prevalence of grade I meningioma was higher in the skull base region higher in the skull base region, accounting for approximately 36% of cases. Conversely, grade II/III meningioma was found more frequently in the non-skull base area, constituting approximately 76% of cases. In our investigation, it was observed that there exists a higher occurrence of irregular border shape in grade II/III meningioma, accounting for approximately 75% of cases, as compared to grade I meningioma, which only accounts for 14.2% of cases. The presence of contrast enhancement in meningiomas can provide valuable insights into their histological grade. Grade II/III meningiomas exhibit a higher degree of contrast enhancement, which is observed to be heterogeneously distributed in approximately 75% of cases.

Conclusion: This study highlights the potential of MRI as a valuable tool in assessing the grade of meningioma while emphasizing the importance of considering other diagnostic modalities and clinical factors to ensure accurate diagnosis and treatment decisions.

References

Adeli A, Hess K, Mawrin C, Streckert E, Stummer W, Paulus W, et al. Prediction of brain invasion in patients with meningiomas using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Oncotarget. 2018;9(89):35974–35982.
Azizyan A, Eboli P, Drazin D, Mirocha J, Maya MM, Bannykh S. Differentiation of benign angiomatous and microcystic meningiomas with extensive peritumoral edema from high grade meningiomas with aid of diffusion weighted MRI. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:650939.
Champeaux C, Wilson E, Shieff C, Khan AA, Thorne L. WHO grade II meningioma: a retrospective study for outcome and prognostic factor assessment. Journal of Neuro-Oncology. 2016;129(1):337–345.
Hwang J, Kong DS, Seol HJ, Nam DH, Lee JI, Choi JW. Clinical and Radiological Characteristics of Angiomatous Meningiomas. Brain Tumor Res Treat. 2016;4(2):94-99.
Baldi I, Engelhard J, Bonnet C, Bauchet L, Berteaud E, Gruber A, et al. Epidemiology of meningiomas. Neurochirurgie. 2018;64(1):5–14.
Lekhavat V, Radeesri K. The Role of Pre-operative MRI For Prediction of High-Grade Intrakranial Meningioma: A Retrospective Study. 2021;24(1):1–13.
Coroller TP, Bi WL, Huynh E, Abedalthagafi M, Aizer AA, Greenwald NF, et al. Radiographic prediction of meningioma grade by semantic and radiomic features. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11):1–15.
Lin BJ, Chou KN, Kao HW, Lin C, Tsai WC, Feng SW, et al. Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging grading and pathological grading in meningioma. Journal of Neurosurgery. 2014;121(5):1201–1208.
Hadidy AM, Nadi M, Ahmad TM, Al-Hussaini M, Al-Abaddi AA, Musharbash A, et al. Descriptive epidemiological analysis, MRI signals intensity and histopathological correlations of meningiomas. Neurosciences. 2010;15(1):11–14.
Hale AT, Wang L, Strother MK, Chambless LB. Differentiating meningioma grade by imaging features on magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 2018;48:71–75.
Varlotto J, Flickinger J, Pavelic MT, Specht CS, Sheehan JM, Timek DT, et al. Distinguishing grade I meningioma from higher grade meningiomas without biopsy. Oncotarget. 2015;6(35):38421-38428.
Hwang WL, Marciscano AE, Niemierko A, Kim D, Rachamimov AOS, Curry Jr WT, et al. Imaging and extent of surgical resection predict risk of meningioma recurrence better than WHO histopathological grade. Neuro-oncology. 2016;18(6):863–872.
Goldbrunner R, Minniti G, Preusser M, Jenkinson MD, Sallabanda K, Houdart E, et al. EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of meningiomas. The Lancet Oncology. 2016;17(9):e383–e391.
Hsu CC, Pai CY, Kao HW, Hsueh CJ, Hsu WL, Lo CP. Do aggressive imaging features correlate with advanced histopathological grade in meningiomas?, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 2010;17(5):584–587.
Huang RY, Bi WL, Griffith B, Kaufmann TJ, Fougere CL, Schmidt NO, et al. Imaging and diagnostic advances for intracranial meningiomas. Neuro-oncology, 2019;21(1):i44–i61.
Yao Y, Xu Y, Liu S, Xue F, Wang B, Qin S, et al. Predicting the grade of meningiomas by clinical–radiological features: A comparison of precontrast and postcontrast MRI. Frontiers in Oncology. 2022;12:1–12.
Salah F, Tabbarah A, Alarab N, Asmar K, Tamim H, Makki M, et al. Can CT and MRI features differentiate benign from malignant meningiomas?. Clinical Radiology. 2019;74(11):898.e15-898.e23.
Magill ST, Young JS, Chae R, Aghi MK, Theodosopoulus PV, McDermott MW. Relationship between tumor location, size, and WHO grade in meningioma. Neurosurgical focus. 2018;44(4):E4.
Kawahara Y, Nakada M, Hayashi Y, Kai Y, Uchiyama N, Nakamura, H, et al. Prediction of high-grade meningioma by preoperative MRI assessment. Journal of Neuro-Oncology. 2012;108(1):147–152.
Utomo SA, Bajamal AH, Yueniwati PW, Haq IBI, Fauziah D, Fajarini ES. Advanced MRI prediction of meningioma histopathological classification: a literature review and case presentations. Bali Medical Journal. 2022;11(1):23–27.
Dewi MMW, Mulyantari NK, Lestari AAW, Prabawa IPY. The relationship of Soluble Suppression of Tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) and Troponin T (TnT) levels in Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) patients at Sanglah General Hospital, Bali, Indonesia. Indonesia Journal of Biomedical Science. 2021;15(2):87-91.
Mardjono I, Arifin M, Sidabutar R, Singh A, Sevline E. Tuberculum sellae meningioma vs. Macroadenoma: How to differentiate preoperatively?. Bali Medical Journal. 2013;2(1):5–9.
Hafizhan H, Bakhtiar Y, Prihatningtias R. Visual function recovery post decompression surgery in meningioma: a case report. Bali Medical Journal. 2021;10(1):429–432.
Wang M, Wang Z, Ren P, Zhang X, Liu S. Meningioma with ring enhancement on MRI: a rare case report. BMC Medical Imaging. 2021;21(1):22.
Kunimatsu A, Kunimatsu N, Kamiya K, Katsura M, Mori H, Ohtomo K. Variants of meningiomas: a review of imaging findings and clinical features. Japanese Journal of Radiology. 2016;34(1):459–469.