ArticleBrain & spine2023
Meningioma classification by immunohistochemistry: A replicability study.
Article in Brain & spine, 2023. 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.
- Prognostic significance of ACADL and MCM2 in meningiomas: Current evidence and clinical implications.Histology and histopathology · 2026Review
- A proteogenomic RNA processing mechanism drives sex differences in meningioma.Research square · 2026Article
- A microenvironment-determined risk continuum refines subtyping in meningioma and reveals determinants of machine learning-based tumor classification.Nature genetics · 2026Article
- Immunohistochemistry markers of molecular subtype do not correlate with the growth behaviour for recurrent meningiomas - a cohort study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Molecular signatures define BAP1-altered meningioma as a distinct CNS tumor with deregulation of Polycomb repressive complex target genes.Neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Validating MCM2 as a clinically relevant surrogate immunohistochemical marker for an aggressive meningioma molecular subtype.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Meningiomas account for nearly 40% of intracranial tumors. Recently, the immunohistochemistry (IHC) markers S100B, SCGN, ACADL and MCM2 have been shown to be associated with underlying biological subtypes of meningioma (MG1-MG4). We aimed to evaluate these IHC markers in a clinical setting. Research question: Are the new proposed IHC markers clinically useful? Methods: In total, 244 patients with meningiomas with tissue in TMAs were included and the IHC markers S100B, SCGN, ACADL and MCM2 were analyzed. Two sets of analyses were performed; the first included all samples with any staining considered positive, the second only samples with >10% immunopositivity. PFS and OS were analyzed in correlation to immunopositivity in the second analysis set. Results: In the first set of analyses only 26.2% of samples could be to allocate to one group. No further analyses were performed with this selection. In the second set of analyses 52.0% could be allocated to a group. There was an enrichment of WHO grade 2 and 3 tumors in MG3 and MG4 as compared to MG1 (24.1% and 25.7% vs. 12.1%). Both the molecular group (p = 0.032) and WHO grade (p = 0.005) had significant impact on PFS, but only WHO grade predicted OS (p = 0.033). Conclusion: We studied the proposed new method of classifying meningiomas into groups MG1, MG2, MG3 and MG4 using IHC markers, but found difficulties applying the classification system in our material mainly due to lack of exclusivity of markers. Thus, in its present form the classification method lacks clinical applicability.
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.