ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2025
Immunohistochemistry markers of molecular subtype do not correlate with the growth behaviour for recurrent meningiomas - a cohort study.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A proteogenomic RNA processing mechanism drives sex differences in meningioma.Research square · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEstablished (Ki-67, H3K27Me3) protein biomarkers correlate to clinically aggressive meningioma and can be quickly and easily assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Novel (S100B, SCGN, ACADL, MCM2) markers have also been proposed. The aim of this study was to determine if IHC-based biomarker expression is correlated with volumetric growth rates in recurrent intracranial meningioma following primary resection.
methodsThis was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of adults (≥ 18 years) with surgical resection of recurrent meningioma. Serial tumour volumes were calculated on serial MRI using the ellipsoid formula. Growth rates were calculated and adjusted for time since resection. IHC was performed on paired samples from first and second resections for six markers. Associations between marker expression and tumour growth trajectories were tested using Kruskal–Wallis and linear mixed-effects models.
resultsThirty-one patients were included (mean age 53.1 years, 71% female). No significant cohort differences were found in IHC expression between primary and recurrent samples (all McNemar P > 0.1). Tumours were positive for ≥ 2 novel markers in 17.2% of primary and 34.5% of recurrent samples. Neither established (Ki-67, H3K27Me3) nor novel markers predicted absolute or relative growth rates (all Kruskal–Wallis P > 0.2). Linear mixed-effects models confirmed no association between marker expression and longitudinal tumour volume trajectories (all P ≥ 0.1).
conclusionIHC expression of established or novel markers did not correlate with meningioma volumetric growth. IHC-based stratification is limited by overlapping expression patterns and inconsistent categorisation and is not recommended for routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41269399What 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.