ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Derivation of a data-driven follow-up protocol for resected skull base meningiomas: a Bayesian analysis.
Article 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComplete resection of skull base meningiomas (SBMs) is often limited by their proximity to critical neurovascular structures, potentially increasing the risk of postoperative progression. This study quantified long-term progression risk after SBM resection, identified predictors of progression, and developed a data-driven MRI surveillance protocol using Bayesian methods.
methodsPatients undergoing SBM resection between 2002 and 2020 at two neurosurgical centres were analysed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to estimate intervention-free survival (IFS). Conditional probability modelling was used to derive an MRI surveillance schedule that maintained a ≤ 3% risk of progression requiring intervention, stratified by extent of resection.
resultsA total of 358 SBMs were included. Median age at diagnosis was 57 years (IQR 18), and 76.0% of patients were female. WHO Grade 1 tumours accounted for 80.3% of cases and Grade 2 for 19.7%. Median follow-up was 97 months (IQR 64-128). Progression requiring re-intervention occurred in 14.1% of patients. Subtotal resection (STR) increased the risk of re-intervention (HR 2.62, 95% CI 1.30-5.30, p = 0.009), whereas higher comorbidity burden (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98, p = 0.038) and incidental presentation (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01-0.88, p = 0.038) were associated with lower risk. Conditional probability modelling demonstrated higher annual progression risk following STR, supporting more intensive imaging surveillance. Recommended MRI schedules were: gross total resection (GTR), scans at 3 months, 2, 5, 8, and 10 years; STR, scans at 3 months, 1 year, 18 months, annually from years 2-8, and at 10 years.
conclusionProgression requiring re-intervention occurs in approximately 17% of patients after SBM resection and is strongly associated with extent of resection. A conditional-risk-based MRI surveillance protocol provides an evidence-based framework for long-term follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42489785What 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.