Nortvig, Mathias Just

ABSTRACTBackgroundMagnetic resonance elastography (MRE) quantifies tissue viscoelasticity, offering insights into intracranial meningiomas. MRE‐derived parameters, including the storage modulus (G') and the magnitude of the complex modulus (|G*|), may aid neurosurgical planning, but their repeatability remains unexplored in brain tumors.Purpose/HypothesisTo evaluate the repeatability of G' and |G*| in meningiomas, the influence of tumor volume and spatial location on variability, and ranking stability across paired elastograms.Study TypeProspective.Population/SubjectsSeventeen paired MRE scans from 16 patients with meningiomas (mean age 64 ± 12 years, 10 females) scheduled for resection.Field Strength/SequenceMRE was performed on a 3 T system using a single‐shot spin‐echo echo‐planar imaging (SE‐EPI) sequence.AssessmentTumors were segmented on contrast‐enhanced T1‐weighted images; distance and volume metrics were extracted. Regions of interest were applied to G' and |G*| elastograms. Repeatability was evaluated using the coefficient of variation (CV%). Ranking stability was assessed by comparing median G' or |G*| values.Statistical TestsThe difference in CV% was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Linear regression assessed the effect of tumor volume and distance from the external occipital protuberance (EOP) on CV%. The Wilcoxon signed‐rank test evaluated ranking stability and scan‐rescan CV%. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.ResultsThe difference in CV% G' (14.89 ± 12.32) and CV% |G*| (13.88 ± 12.60) was not significant (p = 0.61). Tumor volume inversely correlated with CV% (G': β = −0.75 |G*|: β = −0.59). Tumor‐EOP distance had no significant effect (G': p = 0.58, |G*|: p = 0.23). Rankings remained stable (G': p = 0.82, |G*|: p = 0.71).Data ConclusionMRE‐derived parameters are repeatable in intracranial meningiomas, with G' and |G*| being equally stable. Larger tumors yielded more consistent estimates. Preserved ranking stability supports the use of MRE in preoperative planning.Evidence Level2.Technical EfficacyStage 2.