ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
A proposed imaging scoring system to differentiate dural-based metastasis from meningioma using MR and CT images.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung adenocarcinoma dural metastasis at the petroclival region mimicking meningioma: a frozen-section diagnostic pitfall. Illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
- Meningioma versus dural metastasis: integration of T2*-DSC perfusion-derived percentage signal recovery with conventional and contemporary MRI features and clinical variables.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Differentiation of Intracranial Dural Metastases and Meningiomas Using DSC Perfusion MRI and Machine Learning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe differentiation between dural-based metastasis and meningioma, which is the most common benign extra axial tumor, is crucial, particularly when staging patients with known primary neoplasms. The purpose of this study was to assess CT and MR imaging features and to validate a proposed imaging scoring system to differentiate between the two pathologies. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 84 patients with pathologically proven meningioma and 31 dural-based metastases were included in this retrospective study. The CT and MR imaging features, including the mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), presence of edema, cystic changes, dural tail, leptomeningeal enhancement, calcifications, bone destruction and hyperostosis, were evaluated. The efficacy of the proposed imaging method for meningioma and its benign findings was evaluated.
resultsThere was a significant difference in most of the imaging features between patients with meningiomas and those with dural-based metastasis. The presence of vasogenic edema, leptomeningeal enhancement and bone destruction was significantly greater in patients with dural-based metastasis. Bone destruction and leptomeningeal enhancement showed the highest specificity for dural-based metastasis. There was also a significant difference between the two pathologies according to the proposed scoring system, with a P value < 0.001. Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was done to optimize the cutoff point which was identified as score 2 and above which has high 89.6% diagnostic accuracy for meningioma.
conclusionThe proposed imaging scoring system could be an effective tool for predicting the diagnosis of meningioma. This can be utilized to discriminate between meningioma and dural-based metastasis, particularly when staging patients with known primary neoplasms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.