Imaging features to distinguish posterior fossa ependymoma subgroups.
Brain neoplasms
Child
Ependymoma
Fourth ventricle
Magnetic resonance imaging
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Sep 2023
02 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
08
02
2023
accepted:
12
07
2023
revised:
03
07
2023
medline:
4
9
2023
pubmed:
4
9
2023
entrez:
2
9
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Posterior fossa ependymoma group A (EPN_PFA) and group B (EPN_PFB) can be distinguished by their DNA methylation and give rise to different prognoses. We compared the MRI characteristics of EPN_PFA and EPN_PFB at presentation. Preoperative imaging of 68 patients with posterior fossa ependymoma from two centers was reviewed by three independent readers, blinded for histomolecular grouping. Location, tumor extension, tumor volume, hydrocephalus, calcifications, tissue component, enhancement or diffusion signal, and histopathological data (cellular density, calcifications, necrosis, mitoses, vascularization, and microvascular proliferation) were compared between the groups. Categorical data were compared between groups using Fisher's exact tests, and quantitative data using Mann-Whitney tests. We performed a Benjamini-Hochberg correction of the p values to account for multiple tests. Fifty-six patients were categorized as EPN_PFA and 12 as EPN_PFB, with median ages of 2 and 20 years, respectively (p = 0.0008). The median EPN_PFA tumoral volume was larger (57 vs 29 cm Morphological characteristics from imaging differ between posterior fossa ependymoma subtypes and may help to distinguish them preoperatively. This study provides a tool to differentiate between group A and group B ependymomas, which will ultimately allow the therapeutic strategy to be adapted in the early stages of patient management. • Posterior fossa ependymoma subtypes often have different imaging characteristics. • Posterior fossa ependymomas group A are commonly median or lateral tissular calcified masses, with incomplete enhancement, affecting young children and responsible for pronounced hydrocephalus and invasion of the posterior fossa foramina. • Posterior fossa ependymomas group B are commonly median non-calcified masses of adolescents and adults, predominantly cystic, and minimally invasive, with total and homogeneous enhancement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37658900
doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10182-5
pii: 10.1007/s00330-023-10182-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
Références
Ostrom QT, Cioffi G, Waite K et al (2021) CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2014–2018. Neuro Oncol 23:iii1–iii105. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noab200
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noab200
pubmed: 34608945
pmcid: 8491279
Koob M, Girard N (2014) Cerebral tumors: specific features in children. Diagn Interv Imaging 95:965–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2014.06.017
doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2014.06.017
pubmed: 25150727
Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G et al (2016) The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 131:803–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1
doi: 10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1
pubmed: 27157931
Louis DN, Perry A, Wesseling P et al (2021) The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Neuro Oncol 23:1231–1251. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noab106
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noab106
pubmed: 34185076
pmcid: 8328013
Ellison DW, Aldape KD, Capper D et al (2020) cIMPACT-NOW update 7: advancing the molecular classification of ependymal tumors. Brain Pathol 30:863–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/bpa.12866
doi: 10.1111/bpa.12866
Łastowska M, Matyja E, Sobocińska A et al (2021) Transcriptional profiling of paediatric ependymomas identifies prognostically significant groups. J Pathol Clin Res 7:565–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjp2.236
doi: 10.1002/cjp2.236
pubmed: 34314101
pmcid: 8503892
Ramaswamy V, Hielscher T, Mack SC et al (2016) Therapeutic impact of cytoreductive surgery and irradiation of posterior fossa ependymoma in the molecular era: a retrospective multicohort analysis. J Clin Oncol 34:2468–2477. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7825
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7825
Yonezawa U, Karlowee V, Amatya VJ et al (2020) Radiology profile as a potential instrument to differentiate between posterior fossa ependymoma (PF-EPN) group A and B. World Neurosurg 140:e320–e327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.05.063
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.05.063
pubmed: 32428725
R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org
Sabin ND, Hwang SN, Klimo P et al (2021) Anatomic neuroimaging characteristics of posterior fossa type A ependymoma subgroups. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 42(12):2245–2250. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A7322
Zhang M, Wang E, Yecies D et al (2021) Radiomic signatures of posterior fossa ependymoma: molecular subgroups and risk profiles. Neuro Oncol noab272. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noab272
AlRayahi J, Zapotocky M, Ramaswamy V et al (2018) Pediatric brain tumor genetics: what radiologists need to know. Radiographics 38:2102–2122. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018180109
doi: 10.1148/rg.2018180109
U-King-Im JM, Taylor MD, Raybaud C (2010) Posterior fossa ependymomas: new radiological classification with surgical correlation. Childs Nerv Syst 26:1765–1772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-010-1251-6
doi: 10.1007/s00381-010-1251-6
Witt H, Mack SC, Ryzhova M et al (2011) Delineation of two clinically and molecularly distinct subgroups of posterior fossa ependymoma. Cancer Cell 20:143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2011.07.007
doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2011.07.007
pubmed: 21840481
pmcid: 4154494
Taheri H, Tavakoli MB (2021) Measurement of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of ependymoma and medulloblastoma tumors: a patient-based study. J Biomed Phys Eng 11:39–46. https://doi.org/10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.889
doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.889
pubmed: 33564638
pmcid: 7859369
Dangouloff-Ros V, Varlet P, Levy R et al (2018) Imaging features of medulloblastoma: conventional imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, perfusion-weighted imaging, and spectroscopy: from general features to subtypes and characteristics. Neurochirurgie 67(1):6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2017.10.003
doi: 10.1016/j.neuchi.2017.10.003
pubmed: 30170827
Dangouloff-Ros V, Deroulers C, Foissac F et al (2016) Arterial spin labeling to predict brain tumor grading in children: correlations between histopathologic vascular density and perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 281:553–566. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152228
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016152228
pubmed: 27257950
Rudà R, Reifenberger G, Frappaz D et al (2018) EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of ependymal tumors. Neuro Oncol 20:445–456. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nox166
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nox166
pubmed: 29194500