ArticleNeuro-oncology2017
A description of familial clustering of meningiomas in the Utah population.
Article in Neuro-oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeningiomas are common intracranial tumors in adults, yet the genetics and cause of sporadic meningiomas are not well understood. Few familial clusters have been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the familiality of meningiomas within the Utah Population Database.
methodsMeningioma cases reported in the Utah Cancer Registry were identified. Relative risk of their relatives was calculated. All possible cases were assessed with the Genealogical Index of Familiality (GIF), which measures average pairwise relatedness of all possible pairs using the Malecot coefficient of kinship. Clusters of cases descending from a common ancestor were identified.
resultsEight hundred fifty-eight meningioma cases were reported. The relative risk of a first- or second-degree relative was 3.13 (95% CI: 1.67, 5.36) or 2.28 (1.30, 3.70), respectively. The GIF statistic demonstrated a clear excess of relationships for genetic distance <4 (closer than first cousins). We identified 920 pedigrees, including 2-21 meningioma cases. One hundred eighty-nine of these pedigrees, including 2-15 cases, had a significant excess (P < 0.05) of meningioma cases over what was expected.
conclusionsThis Utah population-based analysis of meningiomas shows clear evidence of familial clustering and supports both a familial and a germline variant basis for meningioma. These clusters may allow identification of genes likely to contribute to tumorigenesis in high-risk pedigrees. These relative risk data provide the basis for further investigations of genetic contributions to meningioma. These data may contribute to developing a basis for determining screening criteria of higher-risk pedigrees for the presence of meningiomas.
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.