Intracranial meningiomas

Abstract

Fifty patients with intracranial meningiomas underwent plain and contrast-enhanced examinations with CT and MRI. Each of the MR studies consisted of three plain (T1, proton density and T2-weighted) and a post-contrast series (0.1 mmol Gd-DTPA/kg body weight). All techniques (plain CT, plain MRI, contrast-enhanced CT, contrast-enhanced MRI) proved to be highly efficient as regards tumour detection: depending on the technique, an intracranial lesion was demonstrated in 47-50 cases. The image contrast was assessed as good or excellent in 21 cases having plain CT and in 33 cases having plain MRI, but in 46 and 50 of the contrast-enhanced CT and MRI studies respectively. Adequate tumour delineation was achieved in 18 cases with plain CT, in 35 cases with plain MRI and in 46 and 50 cases of the contrast-enhanced CT and MRI examinations. The contrast-enhanced studies proved to be superior to the plain CT and MRI studies as regards image contrast and tumor delineation. Because of the methodological advantages of the MRI technique, contrast-enhanced MRI was judged to be slightly superior to contrast-enhanced CT.

Body mass index and the risk of meningioma, glioma and schwannoma in a large prospective cohort study (The HUNT Study)

“…Accordingly, 95% of the gliomas, 58% of the meningiomas and 46% of the schwannomas were diagnosed by histological examination, whereas the diagnoses of the remaining tumours were based on radiological examination. Although the sensitivity and specificity of radiological diagnosis is high for meningiomas and schwannomas, the method has limited value for further tumour classification and grading (Bydder et al , 1985; Elster et al , 1989; Wilms et al , 1989; Schorner et al , 1990). Another weakness of this study was that data on incident cancers other than CNS tumours were not available.…”

Incidental detection of late subsequent intracranial neoplasms with magnetic resonance imaging among adult survivors of childhood cancer

“…The prevalence of subsequent intracranial neoplasms after CRT (14.4% among 125 survivors at a mean of 27.8 years from therapy) in our cohort is similar to that reported in other recent studies of survivors who received CRT, such as those of Banerjee et al[11] (22% among 49 irradiated survivors at a mean of 25 years after completion of CRT) and Goshen et al[8] (17% among 88 irradiated survivors at a mean of 21.3 years after therapy).Those earlier studies, however, included contrast-enhanced imaging which increases the sensitivity for detection of small intracranial neoplasms, including meningiomas, and raises the possibility that the absence of contrast in our investigation may contribute to underestimation of the prevalence of subsequent neoplasms. [20]…”

“…[20] The use of contrast may increase detection of small lesions leading to a higher prevalence of subsequent tumors in long-term survivors. Secondly this was a cross-sectional evaluation and, thus, could not assess the cumulative incidence of subsequent neoplasms over time.…”