SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Intramedullary or invasive characteristics of spinal melanocytomas: a PRISMA compliant systematic review and pooled case analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposePrimary meningeal melanocytomas (MMs) of the spinal cord are rare lesions. Even rarer are intramedullary and invasive variants. These intramedullary lesions may exhibit more aggressive behavior than their "benign" classification appreciates. The role of adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) in this context remains uncertain.
methodsThis study is a PRISMA-compliant systematic review with a pooled-case analysis, including two recent institutional cases included as illustrative examples.
resultsSixty-three reports were identified of primary intramedullary or invasive MMs. Among 56 patients with available recurrence data, 8 of 30 patients (26.7%) experienced recurrence after gross-total resection (GTR) and in 8 of 22 (36.4%) after near-total or subtotal resection (NTR/STR), with no significant difference between groups (two-sided Fisher's exact, P = 0.548). No recurrence was observed among three patients who received aRT upfront post GTR, compared with 8 of 27 (29.6%) who did not receive radiation (two-sided Fisher's exact, P = 0.545); however, this subgroup was markedly underpowered and should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating only. Nine patients developed metastatic disease or progression, including one post biopsy. Of the eight who underwent resection at index surgery, 2 (25%) had undergone GTR and 6 (75%) STR.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that the designation of MMs as benign lesions may underestimate the oncologic potential of intramedullary or invasive disease. Consideration of aRT on an individualized basis for patients with intramedullary or invasive disease is reasonable, regardless of extent of resection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42209927What 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.