Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33886110›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2021

The growth rate and clinical outcomes of radiation induced meningioma undergoing treatment or active monitoring.

Conor S Gillespie, Abdurrahman I Islim, Basel A Taweel, Christopher P Millward, Siddhant Kumar, Nitika Rathi, Shaveta Mehta, Brian J Haylock, Nicola Thorp, Catherine E Gilkes and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Human Meningiomas Reveal No Evidence of Neuroendocrine Differentiation.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Conor S GillespieInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. hlcgill2@liv.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9153-3077
Abdurrahman I IslimInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9621-043X
Basel A TaweelInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Christopher P MillwardThe Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Siddhant KumarThe Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Nitika RathiThe Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Shaveta MehtaClatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Brian J HaylockClatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Nicola ThorpClatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Catherine E GilkesThe Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
David D A LawsonThe Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Samantha J MillsThe Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Emmanuel ChavredakisThe Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Jibril Osman FarahThe Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Andrew R BrodbeltThe Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Michael D JenkinsonInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4587-2139
University of Liverpool · GBClatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRadiation induced meningioma (RIM) incidence is increasing in line with improved childhood cancer survival. No optimal management strategy consensus exists. This study aimed to delineate meningioma growth rates from tumor discovery and correlate with clinical outcomes.

methodsRetrospective study of patients with a RIM, managed at a specialist tertiary neuroscience center (2007-2019). Tumor volume was measured from diagnosis and at subsequent interval scans. Meningioma growth rate was determined using a linear mixed-effects model. Clinical outcomes were correlated with growth rates accounting for imaging and clinical prognostic factors.

resultsFifty-four patients (110 meningiomas) were included. Median duration of follow-up was 74 months (interquartile range [IQR], 41-102 months). Mean radiation dose was 41 Gy (standard deviation [SD] = 14.9) with a latency period of 34.4 years (SD = 13.7). Median absolute growth rate was 0.62 cm

conclusionRIMs exhibit high absolute and relative growth rates after discovery. Surgery is recommended for symptomatic or rapidly growing meningiomas only. Recurrence risk after surgery is high.

Indexed as

Meningeal NeoplasmsMeningiomaNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedFollow-Up StudiesHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeMeningiomaNatural historyRadiationRadiation induced meningiomaVolumetric growth

Identifiers

PMID33886110
PMCPMC8211577
OpenAlexW3152726018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.