Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37383436›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2023

Differences in intraoperative sampling during meningioma surgery regarding CNS invasion - Results of a survey on behalf of the EANS skull base section.

Felix Behling, Michaël Bruneau, Jürgen Honegger, Moncef Berhouma, Emmanuel Jouanneau, Luigi Cavallo, Jan Frederick Cornelius, Mahmoud Messerer, Roy Thomas Daniel, Sébastien Froelich and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

21 authors.

Felix BehlingDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Germany.
Michaël BruneauDepartment of Neurosurgery, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Jürgen HoneggerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Germany.
Moncef BerhoumaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, Dijon, Bourgogne, France.
Emmanuel JouanneauNeurosurgery Department, Hôpital Neurologique Pierre Wertheimer, Hospices Civils de Lyon, France.
Luigi CavalloDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Jan Frederick CorneliusDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Mahmoud MessererDepartment of Neurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Roy Thomas DanielDepartment of Neurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Sébastien FroelichDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hôpital Lariboisière, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris - Cité, Paris, France.
Diego MazzatentaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Neurological Sciences Institute IRCCS, Bologna, Italy.
Torstein MelingDepartment of Neurosurgery, The National Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dimitrios ParaskevopoulosDepartment of Neurosurgery, Barts Health NHS Trust, St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London Hospital, Blizard Institute QMUL, London, United Kingdom.
Pierre-Hugues RocheService de Neurochirurgie, Aix-Marseille Université, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Hôpital Nord, Marseille, France.
Henry W S SchroederDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medicine, Greifswald, Germany.
Idoya ZazpeDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain.
Eduard VoormolenDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands.
Massimiliano VisocchiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Institute of Neurosurgery Catholic University of Rome, Italy.
Ekkehard KasperDepartment of Neurosurgery, St. Elizabeth Medical Center and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Brighton, USA.
Jens SchittenhelmCenter for CNS Tumors, Comprehensive Cancer Center Tübingen-Stuttgart, University Hospital Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Germany.
Marcos TatagibaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: and Research Question: Invasive growth of meningiomas into CNS tissue is rare but of prognostic significance. While it has entered the WHO classification as a stand-alone criterion for atypia, its true prognostic impact remains controversial. Retrospective analyses, on which the current evidence is based, show conflicting results. Discordant findings might be explained by different intraoperative sampling methodologies. Material and methods: To assess the applied sampling methods in the light of the novel prognostic impact of CNS invasion, an anonymous survey was designed and distributed via the EANS website and newsletter. The survey was open from June 5th until July 15th, 2022. Results: After exclusion of 13 incomplete responses, 142 (91.6%) datasets were used for statistical analysis. Only 47.2% of participants' institutions utilize a standardized sampling method, and 54.9% pursue a complete sampling of the area of contact between the meningioma surface and CNS tissue. Most respondents (77.5%) did not change their sampling practice after introduction of the new grading criteria to the WHO classification of 2016. Intraoperative suspicion of CNS invasion changes the sampling for half of the participants (49.3%). Additional sampling of suspicious areas of interest is reported in 53.5%. Dural attachment and adjacent bone are more readily sampled separately if tumor invasion is suspected (72.5% and 74.6%, respectively), compared to meningioma tissue with signs of CNS invasion (59.9%). Discussion and conclusions: Intraoperative sampling methods during meningioma resection vary among neurosurgical departments. There is need for a structured sampling to optimize the diagnostic yield of CNS invasion.

Indexed as

Brain invasionCNS invasionEANSIntraoperative samplingMeningiomaSurvey

Identifiers

PMID37383436
PMCPMC10293290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.