Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29600523›Full record

ArticleBrain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland)2019

Grading of meningeal solitary fibrous tumors/hemangiopericytomas: analysis of the prognostic value of the Marseille Grading System in a cohort of 132 patients.

Nicolas Macagno, Rob Vogels, Romain Appay, Carole Colin, Karima Mokhtari, French CNS SFT/HPC Consortium, Dutch CNS SFT/HPC Consortium, Benno Küsters, Pieter Wesseling, Dominique Figarella-Branger and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Solitary fibrous tumor: an updated review.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Solitary fibrous tumor in the pineal region: A series of 5 cases and literature review.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicolas MacagnoDepartment of Pathology and Neuropathology, Timone Hospital, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9882-2162
Rob VogelsDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Romain AppayDepartment of Pathology and Neuropathology, Timone Hospital, Marseille, France.
Carole ColinINSERM UMR911, Aix-Marseille University (AMU), Marseille, France.
Karima MokhtariDepartment of Neuropathology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France.
French CNS SFT/HPC Consortium
Dutch CNS SFT/HPC Consortium
Benno KüstersDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Pieter WesselingDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dominique Figarella-BrangerDepartment of Pathology and Neuropathology, Timone Hospital, Marseille, France.
Uta FluckeDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Corinne BouvierDepartment of Pathology and Neuropathology, Timone Hospital, Marseille, France.
Inserm · FRRadboud University Nijmegen · NLSorbonne Université · FRUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The finding that meningeal solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs) and meningeal hemangiopericytomas (HPCs) are both characterized by NAB2-STAT6 gene fusion has pushed their inclusion in the WHO 2016 Classification of tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) as different manifestations of the same entity. Given that the clinical behavior of the CNS SFT/HPC spectrum ranges from benign to malignant, it is presently unclear whether the grading criteria are still adequate. Here, we present the results of a study that analyzed the prognostic value of an updated version of the Marseille Grading System (MGS) in a retrospectively assembled cohort of 132 primary meningeal SFTs/HPCs with nuclear overexpression of STAT6. The median patient follow-up was 64 months (range 4-274 months); 73 cases (55%) were MGS I, 50 cases (38%) MGS II and 9 cases (7%) were MGS III. Progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were investigated using univariate analysis: the prognostic factors for PFS included MGS, extent of surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and mitotic activity ≥5/10 high-power field (HPF). Moreover, MGS, radiotherapy, mitotic activity ≥5/10 HPF, and necrosis were the prognostic factors measured for DSS. In multivariate analysis, extent of surgery, mitotic activity ≥5/10 HPF, MGS I and MGS III were the independent prognostic factors measured for PFS while necrosis, MGS III and radiotherapy were the independent prognostic factors for DSS. In conclusion, our results show that assessing the malignancy risk of SFT/HPC should not rely on one single criterion like mitotic activity. Therefore, MGS is useful as it combines the value of different criteria. In particular, the combination of a high mitotic activity and necrosis (MGS III) indicates a particularly poor prognosis.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHemangiopericytomaHumansMaleMeningeal NeoplasmsMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProgression-Free SurvivalRepressor ProteinsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesNAB2 protein, humanRepressor ProteinsSTAT6 protein, humanSTAT6 Transcription Factorcentral nervous systemgradinghemangiopericytomaMarseille Grading SystemMGSprognostic factorssolitary fibrous tumor

Identifiers

PMID29600523
PMCPMC8028559
OpenAlexW2795353466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.