Background In preoperative embolization for intracranial meningioma, endovascular intratumoral embolization is considered to be more effective for the reduction of tumorous vascularity than proximal feeder occlusion. In this study, we aimed to reveal different efficacies for reducing tumor blood flow in meningiomas by comparing endovascular intratumoral embolization and proximal feeder occlusion using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion-weighted imaging (DSC-PWI).
Methods 28 consecutive patients were included. DSC-PWI was performed before and after embolization for intracranial meningiomas. Normalized tumor blood volume (nTBV) of voxels of interest of whole tumors were measured from the DSC-PWI data before and after embolization. ΔnTBV% was compared between the cases that received intratumoral embolization and proximal feeder occlusion.
Results ΔnTBV% in the intratumoral embolization group (42.4±29.8%) was higher than that of the proximal feeder occlusion group (15.3±14.3%, p=0.0039). We used three types of embolic materials and ΔnTBV% did not differ between treatments with or without the use of each material: 42.8±42.4% vs 28.7±20.1% for microspheres (p=0.12), 36.1±20.6% vs 28.1±41.1% for n-butyl cyanoacrylate (p=0.33), and 32.3±37.3% vs 34.1±19.0% for bare platinum coils (p=0.77).
Conclusions The flow reduction effect of intratumoral embolization was superior to that of proximal feeder occlusion in preoperative embolization for intracranial meningioma in an assessment using DSC-PWI.
- MR perfusion
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors Concept and study design: KA, HN, YW, MK and HK. Data acquisition and analysis: KA, HN, YW, TK, MS, AA, MT, HA, TO, YF, KN and MK. Drafting of the manuscript and figures: KA, HN, MK and HK. Review and editing of the manuscript: all authors.
Funding This work was supported by the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy grant number.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.