ArticleVeterinary oncology (London, England)2026
A comparative evaluation of canine meningioma supporting the canine patient as a naturally occurring animal model for human meningioma: a report from the NCI Comparative Brain Tumor Consortium (CBTC) meningioma pathology board.
Article in Veterinary oncology (London, England), 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Diagnostic classification criteria of canine meningioma remain poorly codified and have not been linked to outcome data in large scale studies employing standardized review of slides by a board of multiple pathologists. Methods: The National Cancer Institute-led multidisciplinary Comparative Brain Tumor Consortium (CBTC) convened a meningioma pathology board, comprising both veterinarian pathologists and physician neuropathologists, and conducted a comprehensive review of 190 cases of canine meningioma. Comparative histologic and cellular features were assessed and discussed by the board for their similarities and differences to human meningioma. All cases were morphologically classified by histologic subtypes defined by the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) and by histologic grading system for human meningioma. Results: The majority of canine meningiomas were classified as meningothelial (140/190); most cases (109/190) were diagnosed as grade 2, 79 as grade 1, and two cases as grade 3. The histologic features with the highest agreement between reviewers were necrosis and central nervous system (CNS) invasion (intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.44 for both features). Although morphologic features of the human grading scheme could be applied to canine tumors, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between grade 1 and grade 2 tumors in our patient subset with either detailed progression and cause of death information ( Conclusions: While similarities exist between human and canine meningioma, a revised grading framework must be utilized for canine cases, distinct from the World Health Organization classification scheme for humans. Additional studies evaluating larger numbers of similarly treated dogs are necessary, and a framework for studies to enable future meta-analysis is suggested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.