ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2024
Proton therapy for intracranial meningioma: a single-institution retrospective analysis of efficacy, survival and toxicity outcomes.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness and safety of proton therapy in intracranial meningioma treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Recent technology development in radiotherapy for intracranial meningiomas.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo report the outcomes of a large series of intracranial meningiomas (IMs) submitted to proton therapy (PT) with curative intent.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis on all consecutive IM patients treated between 2014 and 2021. The median PT prescription dose was 55.8 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) and 66 GyRBE for benign/radiologically diagnosed and atypical/anaplastic IMs, respectively. Local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), overall survival (OS), and radionecrosis-free survival (RNFS) were evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariable analysis was performed to identify potential prognostic factors for clinical outcomes. Toxicity was reported according to the latest Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0.
resultsOverall, 167 patients were included. With a median follow-up of 41 months (range, 6-99), twelve patients (7%) developed tumor local recurrence after a median time of 39 months. The 5-year LRFS was 88% for the entire cohort, with a significant difference between benign/radiologically diagnosed and atypical/anaplastic IMs (98% vs. 47%, p < 0.001); this significant difference was maintained also for the 5-year OS and the 5-year DRFS rates. Patients aged ≤ 56 years reported significantly better outcomes, whereas lower prescription doses and skull base location were associated with better RNFS rates. Two patients experienced G3 acute toxicities (1.2%), and three patients G3 late toxicities (1.8%). There were no G4-G5 adverse events.
conclusionPT proved to be effective with an acceptable toxicity profile. To the best of our knowledge this is one of the largest series including IM patients submitted to PT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38918319What 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.