ArticleNeurosurgical review2022
Clinical and pathological impact of an optimal assessment of brain invasion for grade 2 meningioma diagnosis: lessons from a series of 291 cases.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiparameter MRI-based radiomics nomogram for preoperative prediction of brain invasion in atypical meningioma:a multicentre study.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Descriptive epidemiology of 30,223 histopathologically confirmed meningiomas in France: 2006-2015.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Differences in intraoperative sampling during meningioma surgery regarding CNS invasion - Results of a survey on behalf of the EANS skull base section.Brain & spine · 2023Article
- Meningiomas with CNS invasion.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Brain invasion as a diagnostic histological feature of atypical meningiomas: Not a standalone diagnostic criterion.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
- Base MRI Imaging Characteristics of Meningioma Patients to Discuss the WHO Classification of Brain Invasion Otherwise Benign Meningiomas.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain invasion has not been recognized as a standalone criterion for atypical meningioma by the WHO classification until 2016. Since the 2007 edition suggested that meningiomas harboring brain invasion could be classified as grade 2, brain invasion study was progressively strengthened in our center, based on a strong collaboration between neurosurgeons and neuropathologists regarding sample orientation and examination. Practice changes were considered homogeneous enough in 2011. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of gross practice change on the clinical and pathological characteristics of intracranial meningiomas classified as grade 2.The characteristics of consecutive patients with a grade 2 meningioma surgically managed before (1998-2005, n = 125, group A) and after (2011-2014, n = 166, group B) practices changed were retrospectively reviewed.Sociodemographical and clinical parameters were comparable in groups A and B, and the median age was 62 years in both groups (p = 0.18). The 5-year recurrence rates (23.2% vs 29.5%, p = 0.23) were similar. In group A, brain invasion was present in 48/125 (38.4%) cases and was more frequent than in group B (14/166, 8.4%, p < 0.001). In group A, 33 (26.4%) meningiomas were classified as grade 2 solely based on brain invasion (group A
Indexed as
Identifiers
35488071What 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.