Postoperative evaluation for disseminated medulloblastoma involving the spine: contrast-enhanced MR findings, CSF cytologic analysis, timing of disease occurrence, and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Postoperative MR imaging is routinely performed for staging of medulloblastoma because of frequent tumor dissemination along CSF pathways. The goals of this study were to: 1) determine the timing of disease occurrence and contrast-enhanced MR imaging features of disseminated medulloblastoma involving the spine and their relationship to patient outcomes; and 2) compare the diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging findings with CSF cytologic analysis. METHODS: Medical records, pathologic reports, and unenhanced and contrast-enhanced postoperative MR images of the spine and head from 112 patients who had resection of medulloblastoma were retrospectively reviewed. MR images of the spine were evaluated for abnormal contrast enhancement in the meninges and vertebral bone marrow. MR images of the head were evaluated for recurrent or residual intracranial tumor. Imaging data were correlated with available CSF cytologic results and patient outcomes. RESULTS: Twelve patients (11%) had tumor within the spinal leptomeninges depicted on MR images at the time of diagnosis. Twenty-five patients (22%) had disseminated disease in the spine (leptomeninges, n = 22; vertebral marrow, n = 1; or both locations, n = 2) on MR images 2 months to 5.5 years (mean, 2 years) after initial surgery and earlier negative imaging examinations. Eleven other patients (10%) had recurrent intracranial medulloblastoma without spinal involvement seen with MR imaging. Spinal MR imaging had a sensitivity of 83% in the detection of disseminated tumor, whereas contemporaneous CSF cytologic analysis had a sensitivity of 60%. The sensitivity of CSF cytologic analysis increased to 78% with acquisition of multiple subsequent samples, although diagnosis would have been delayed by more than 6 months compared with diagnosis by spinal MR imaging in six patients. Spinal MR imaging was found to have greater overall diagnostic accuracy than CSF cytologic analysis in the early detection of disseminated tumor (P = .03). Spinal MR imaging confirmed disseminated tumor when contemporaneous CSF cytologic findings were negative in 13 patients, whereas the opposite situation occurred in only two patients. False-positive results for spinal MR imaging and CSF cytologic analysis occurred when these examinations were obtained earlier than 2 weeks after surgery. The 5-year survival probability for patients with spinal tumor was 0.24 +/- 0.08 versus 0.68 +/- 0.05 for the entire study group. CONCLUSION: Spinal MR imaging was found to have greater diagnostic accuracy than CSF cytologic analysis in the early detection of disseminated medulloblastoma. CSF cytologic analysis infrequently confirmed disseminated tumor when spinal MR imaging results were negative. Delaying spinal MR imaging and CSF cytologic analysis by more than 2 weeks after surgery can reduce false-positive results for both methods. The presence of disseminated medulloblastoma in the spine seen with MR imaging is associated with a poor prognosis.

Associations between patient report of symptoms and anatomic impairment visible on lumbar magnetic resonance imaging.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study comparing the relationship of symptoms with anatomic impairment visible on lumbar magnetic resonance imaging in 408 symptomatic subjects. OBJECTIVE: To determine how various anatomic impairments, including the magnitude and location of nerve compression visible on lumbar magnetic resonance imaging, are associated with patient reports of pain, weakness, and dysesthesia. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: Anatomic impairments of the intervertebral disc, radicular canal, and associated soft tissues are prevalent in people with and those without low back pain or lower extremity radiculopathy. This has led to confusion in differentiating between symptom generators and benign variation visible on lumbar magnetic resonance imaging. Recent literature has suggested that the presence of nerve compression is an important finding in the prediction of symptoms. However, the threshold for meaningful nerve compression has not been described. METHODS: In this study, 408 participants undergoing a diagnostic workup for low back pain, radiculopathy, and/ or completed a survey and pain drawing. Participants underwent standardized lumbar magnetic resonance imaging using a 1.5-T scanner. Two classification systems describing the spatial distribution of symptoms were developed. An additional system to quantify the magnitude of nerve and thecal sac compression was created. All systems were assessed for reliability, after which comparisons among variables were performed using Chi2 as well as simple and multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The reliability coefficients for categorizing patients on the basis of pain drawing ranged from 0. 75 to 0.88. The S1-S2 segmental distribution was the most commonly reported location of symptoms, followed by L4-L5. The most common magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis was "unremarkable," followed by "disc impairment without nerve compression." Disc extrusion was present in 10.8% of participants. The reliability of classifying nerve compression visible on magnetic resonance imaging ranged from 0.27 to 1. Nerve compression was present in 37% of participants, and 18% had severe nerve compression. There were no significant associations between segmental distribution of symptoms and the presence of anatomic impairment. However, according to a collapsed classification scale, severe nerve compression and disc extrusion were predictive of pain distal to the knee (odds ratios, 2.72 and 3. 34). The self-report of weakness was associated mildly with severe nerve compression and disc extrusion, but not with other findings. Magnetic resonance imaging findings did not predict self-reports of dysesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of disc extrusion and/or ipsilateral, severe nerve compression at one or multiple sites is strongly associated with distal leg pain. Mild to moderate nerve compression, disc degeneration or bulging, and central spinal stenosis are not significantly associated with specific pain patterns. Although segmental distributions of pain can be determined reliably from pain drawings, this finding alone is of little use in predicting lumbar impairment. The self-report of lower extremity weakness or dysesthesia is not significantly related to any specific lumbar impairments. [Key words: back pain, diagnosis, magnetic resonance imaging, nerve compression, pain drawing, pathology]

Magnetic resonance imaging in low back pain: general principles and clinical issues.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the general principles of lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including signal generation and image interpretation. Additionally, a discussion of the clinical usefulness as it relates to lumbar MRI is presented using degenerative disk disease as an example. Lumbar MRI provides high-resolution, multiaxial, multiplanar views that have high contrast between soft tissues. Obtaining these images in vivo creates minimal risk for patients and provides examiners with an excellent mechanism to study anatomic detail and the biochemical composition of the lumbar spine. Different tissue characteristics known as T1, T2, and proton density may be accentuated, allowing examiners to detect variations in tissue shape and hydration that may correspond to disease processes. There is strong agreement that lumbar MRI is indicated for the evaluation of patients with risk factors for neoplastic or infectious disorders or in persons with coexisting evidence of neurologic impairment. The utilization of lumbar MRI in patients with low back pain (LBP), however, is controversial. Lumbar MRI has a high technical capacity to detect degenerative disk disease, bulging and herniated disks, and distortions in the thecal sac or nerve roots associated with these conditions. The diagnostic accuracy, however, of most lumbar anatomic impairments related to the symptoms of LBP is low or unknown. Although lumbar MRI remains as an excellent tool to study morphology, findings must be related to data from clinical examinations to provide meaningful judgments.

Effect of lordosis on the position of the nucleus pulposus in supine subjects. A study using magnetic resonance imaging.

STUDY DESIGN: Healthy young women (N = 20) underwent magnetic resonance imaging while supine with their hips and knees flexed (flexed position) and supine with a lumbar roll under the low back (extended position). The posterior and anterior margins of the nucleus pulposus (NP) relative to posterior and anterior margins of the adjacent vertebral bodies were calculated from mid-sagittal T2-weighted images to determine the position change of the NP as a function of two supine postures. OBJECTIVES: This study describes the effect of two commonly used supine postures on the position of the NP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Management of patients with low back pain is often based on theorized positional changes of the NP during spinal extension and flexion. Data describing NP positional changes have not been reported for noninvasive measurements. RESULTS: The distance of the posterior margin of the NP to the posterior margins of the adjacent vertebral bodies was greater in the extended compared with the flexed position. There was no difference in the anterior distance. Eight of the 20 subjects had at least one degenerative disc in the lower lumbar spine. The NPs of the degenerative discs did not move the same as normal discs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a lumbar roll under the low back when supine causes an increase in the distance from the posterior margin of the NP to the posterior portions of the vertebral bodies in normal discs of healthy young females. Degenerative discs deform differently from nondegenerative discs.