Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Apr;38(2):81-95.
doi: 10.1007/s10014-020-00390-y. Epub 2021 Jan 6.

Prognostic significance of brain invasion in meningiomas: systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Prognostic significance of brain invasion in meningiomas: systematic review and meta-analysis

Satoshi Nakasu et al. Brain Tumor Pathol. 2021 Apr.

Abstract

The WHO 2016 classification introduced brain invasion as a standalone criterion for grade II meningioma (GIIM). We systematically reviewed studies published after 2000 and performed a PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of the hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) between brain-invasive and noninvasive meningiomas. In five studies that included both benign and higher-grade meningiomas, brain invasion was a significant risk factor for recurrence (HR = 2.45, p = 0.0004). However, in 3 studies comparing "brain-invasive meningioma with otherwise benign histology (BIOB)" with grade I meningioma, brain invasion was not a significant predictor of PFS (HR = 1.49, p = 0.23). Among GIIM per the WHO 2000 criteria, brain invasion was a significant predictor of shorter PFS than noninvasive GIIM (HR = 3.40, p = 0.001) but not per the WHO 2016 criteria (HR 1.13, p = 0.54), as the latter includes BIOB. Meta-regression analysis of seven studies of grade II meningioma showed that more frequent BIOB was associated with lower HRs (p < 0.0001). Hence, there is no rationale for brain invasion as a standalone criterion for grade II meningioma, although almost all studies were retrospective and exhibited highly heterogeneous HRs due to differences in brain-tumor interface data availability.

Keywords: Brain invasion; Meningioma; Meta-analysis; WHO grade.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Perry A, Louis DN, Budka H, et al. (2016) Meningioma. In Luois DN, et al (ed) WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system IARC Press, Lyon, pp 231–245
    1. Louis DN, Scheithauer BW, Budka H, von Deimling A, Kepe JJ (2000) Meningiomas. In Kleihues P, Cavenee WK (ed) Pathology and genetics of tumours of the central nervous system IARC Press, Lyon, pp.176–184
    1. Perry A, Louis DN, Scheithauer BW, Budka H, von Demling A (2007) Meningioma. In Luois DN, et al (ed) WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system IARC Press, Lyon, pp.163–172
    1. Jellinger K, Slowik F (1975) Histological subtypes and prognostic problems in meningiomas. J Neurol 208:279–298 - PubMed
    1. Böker DK, Meurer H, Gullotta F (1985) Recurring intracranial meningiomas. Evaluation of some factors predisposing for tumor recurrence. J Neurosurg Sci 29:11–17 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources