Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41853414›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Peritumoral Cystic Meningioma With Diagnostic Challenges: Two Case Reports and a Literature Review.

Wei-Chih Chen, Zi-Jie Lin, Lam Chee-Tat

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Wei-Chih ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, TWN.
Zi-Jie LinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, TWN.
Lam Chee-TatDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, TWN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cystic meningiomas are relatively rare and pose significant diagnostic challenges because their heterogeneous cystic architecture closely mimics gliomas or metastatic lesions. This radiological overlap creates critical diagnostic dilemmas that directly influence surgical strategy and patient counseling. We present two surgically treated cases that illustrate distinct imaging pitfalls and offer practical insights for advanced image-based differentiation. The first patient, a 45-year-old man, presented with behavioral changes and right-sided weakness; Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a heterogeneous left temporal cystic mass, initially suspected to be a cystic meningioma or metastatic tumor. The second patient experienced dizziness for one day following mild trauma; The CT and MRI showed cystic lesions at the left frontal convexity. The differential diagnoses included cystic meningioma, hemangioblastoma, metastatic tumor, brain abscess, and chronic subdural hematoma. Both patients underwent frontotemporal craniotomy, and the first case revealed a cyst containing xanthochromic fluid and distinct mural nodules attached to the dura. In the second case, the cystic component contained an organized mixed hematoma, liquefied "black oil" blood, combined with granulation tissue and a solid tumor mass. Histopathology confirmed angiomatous meningioma in the first case and atypical meningioma in the second. Despite the diagnostic complexities, both patients showed favorable postoperative recovery. These cases underscore the importance of distinguishing cystic meningiomas from other intracranial pathologies.

Indexed as

angiomatous meningiomacraniotomy for tumorcystic neoplasmmalignant neoplasm of brainmeningioma

Identifiers

PMID41853414
PMCPMC12991905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.