BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To propose a multiparametric score for discrimination of grade 2/3 from grade 1 intracranial meningiomas (IMs) based on preoperative patient and MRI data. METHODS: A retrospective cohort (n = 463) was used to test patient (age and sex) and MRI characteristics (volume, edema, necrosis, cysts, contrast patterns, edge irregularity, location) to detect a significant correlation with grade 2/3 IMs using binary logistic regression analysis with Hosmer-Lemeshow-test. All IMs were classified according to the 2021 classification. Depending on the variables' strength of correlation, points were assigned based on rounded β-coefficient from binary logistic regression and tallied together to form a total score. A cutoff score was defined by the highest Youden-index. The score was validated in a prospective (n = 211) and DNA methylation-based classification cohort (n = 18). Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. RESULTS: Six variables were significantly correlated with grade 2/3 IMs (edema, location at the convexity, volume >40 cm 3 , male sex, necrosis and cysts). By applying 1 point for male sex, edema, and cysts and 2 points for location at the convexity, volume ≥40 cm 3 , and necrosis, a cutoff value of 3 was identified for discrimination (91 grade 2/3; 372 grade 1 IMs [AUC = 0.791, sensitivity 76.9%, specificity 64.8%, PPV 34.8% and NPV 92%]). The cutoff value 3 was confirmed in the validation cohort (45 grade 2/3 and 166 grade 1 IMs [AUC 0.773, sensitivity 86%, specificity 60.7%, PPV 35.9%, and NPV 95.2%]) and in the DNA methylation-based classification (6 grade 2/3 and 12 grade 1 IMs [AUC 0.750, sensitivity 75%, specificity 83.3%, PPV 90%, and NPV 62.5%]). CONCLUSION: The MEN-CCVol score ( M ale, E dema, N ecrosis, C onvexity, C yst, Vol ume) provides a readily applicable discrimination tool to identify grade 2/3 IMs. It may guide patients' counseling, timing of surgery, and surgical strategy. Further validation using genetic and epigenetic markers is required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wagle et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: