Distinguishing grade I meningioma from higher grade meningiomas without biopsy

Distinguishing grade I meningioma from higher grade meningiomas without biopsy

Many meningiomas are identified by imaging and followed, with an assumption that they are WHO Grade I tumors. The purpose of our investigation is to find clinical or imaging predictors of WHO Grade II/III tumors to distinguish them from Grade I meningiomas. Patients with a pathologic diagnosis of me...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Oncotarget Vol. 6; no. 35; pp. 38421 - 38428
Main Authors: Varlotto, John, Flickinger, John, Pavelic, Martin T, Specht, Charles S, Sheehan, Jonas M, Timek, Dana T, Glantz, Michael J, Sogge, Steven, Dimaio, Christopher, Moser, Richard, Yunus, Shakeeb, Fitzgerald, Thomas J, Upadhyay, Urvashi, Rava, Paul, Tangel, Matthew, Yao, Aaron, Kanekar, Sangam
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States Impact Journals LLC 10-11-2015
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biopsy
Child
Child, Preschool
Clinical Research Paper
Diagnosis, Differential
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Meningeal Neoplasms - etiology
Meningeal Neoplasms - pathology
Meningioma - etiology
Meningioma - pathology
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Grading
Postmenopause
Predictive Value of Tests
Registries
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Sex Factors
Young Adult
meningioma
tumor vascularity
MRI
cerebrovascular accident
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Many meningiomas are identified by imaging and followed, with an assumption that they are WHO Grade I tumors. The purpose of our investigation is to find clinical or imaging predictors of WHO Grade II/III tumors to distinguish them from Grade I meningiomas. Patients with a pathologic diagnosis of meningioma from 2002-2009 were included if they had pre-operative MRI studies and pathology for review. A Neuro-Pathologist reviewed and classified all tumors by WHO 2007. All Brain MRI imaging was reviewed by a Neuro-radiologist. Pathology and Radiology reviews were blinded from each other and clinical course. Recursive partitioning was used to create predictive models for identifying meningioma grades. Factors significantly correlating with a diagnosis of WHO Grade II-III tumors in univariate analysis: prior CVA (p = 0.005), CABG (p = 0.010), paresis (p = 0.008), vascularity index = 4/4: (p = 0.009), convexity vs other (p = 0.014), metabolic syndrome (p = 0.025), non-skull base (p = 0.041) and non-postmenopausal female (p = 0.045). Recursive partitioning analysis identified four categories: 1. prior CVA, 2. vascular index (vi) = 4 (no CVA), 3. premenopausal or male, vi < 4, no CVA. 4. Postmenopausal, vi < 4, no CVA with corresponding rates of 73, 54, 35 and 10% of being Grade II-III meningiomas. Meningioma patients with prior CVA and those grade 4/4 vascularity are the most likely to have WHO Grade II-III tumors while post-menopausal women without these features are the most likely to have Grade I meningiomas. Further study of the associations of clinical and imaging factors with grade and clinical behavior are needed to better predict behavior of these tumors without biopsy.
ISSN:1949-2553
1949-2553
DOI:10.18632/oncotarget.5376