Skip to main content
Log in

Brain invasion in otherwise benign meningiomas does not predict tumor recurrence

  • Correspondence
  • Published:
Acta Neuropathologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Gousias K, Schramm J, Simon M (2016) The Simpson grading revisited: aggressive surgery and its place in modern meningioma management. J Neurosurg. doi:10.3171/2015.9.JNS15754

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heald JB, Carroll TA, Mair RJ (2013) Simpson grade: an opportunity to reassess the need for complete resection of meningiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 156:383–388. doi:10.1007/s00701-013-1923-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Klinger DR, Flores BC, Lewis JJ et al (2015) Atypical meningiomas: recurrence, reoperation, and radiotherapy. World Neurosurg 84:839–845. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.04.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G et al (2016) The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 131:803–820. doi:10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Oya S, Kawai K, Nakatomi H, Saito N (2012) Significance of Simpson grading system in modern meningioma surgery: integration of the grade with MIB-1 labeling index as a key to predict the recurrence of WHO grade I meningiomas. J Neurosurg 117:121–128. doi:10.3171/2012.3.JNS111945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Perry A, Scheithauer BW, Stafford SL, Lohse CM, Wollan PC (1999) “Malignancy” in meningiomas: a clinicopathologic study of 116 patients, with grading implications. Cancer 85:2046–2056

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Perry A, Stafford SL, Scheithauer BW, Suman VJ, Lohse CM (1997) Meningioma grading: an analysis of histologic parameters. Am J Surg Pathol 21:1455–1465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pizem J, Velnar T, Prestor B, Mlakar J, Popovic M (2014) Brain invasion assessability in meningiomas is related to meningioma size and grade, and can be improved by extensive sampling of the surgically removed meningioma specimen. Clin Neuropathol 33:354–363. doi:10.5414/NP300750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rempel SA, Davis RL, Cavenee WK, Rosenblum ML, Schwechheimer K (1993) Loss of heterozygosity morphologically for loci on chromosome 10 is associated with malignant meningioma progression. Cancer Res 53:2386–2392

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rogers CL, Perry A, Pugh S et al (2016) Pathology concordance levels for meningioma classification and grading in NRG Oncology RTOG Trial 0539. Neuro Oncol 18:565–574. doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ruiz J, Martinez A, Hernandez S et al (2010) Clinicopathological variables, immunophenotype, chromosome 1p36 loss and tumour recurrence of 247 meningiomas grade I and II. Histol Histopathol 25:341–349

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sahm F, Schrimpf D, Olar A et al (2016) TERT promoter mutations and risk of recurrence in meningioma. J Natl Cancer Inst. doi:10.1093/jnci/djv377

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schmidt M, Mock A, Jungk C et al (2016) Transcriptomic analysis of aggressive meningiomas identifies PTTG1 and LEPR as prognostic biomarkers independent of WHO grade. Oncotarget. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.7396

    Google Scholar 

  14. Simon M, von Deimling A, Larson JJ et al (1995) Allelic losses on chromosomes 14, 10, and 1 in atypical and malignant meningiomas: a genetic model of meningioma progression. Cancer Res 55:4696–4701

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Simpson D (1957) The recurrence of intracranial meningiomas after surgical treatment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 20:22–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Spille DC, Heß K, Sauerland C et al (2016) Brain invasion in meningiomas: incidence and correlations with clinical variables and prognosis. World Neurosurg. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.06.055

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sughrue ME, Kane AJ, Shangari G et al (2010) The relevance of Simpson grade I and II resection in modern neurosurgical treatment of World Health Organization grade I meningiomas. J Neurosurg 113:1029–1035. doi:10.3171/2010.3.JNS091971

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sun SQ, Kim AH, Cai C et al (2014) Management of atypical cranial meningiomas, part 1: predictors of recurrence and the role of adjuvant radiation after gross total resection. Neurosurgery 75:347–354. doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Weber RG, Boström J, Wolter M et al (1997) Analysis of genomic alterations in benign, atypical, and anaplastic meningiomas: toward a genetic model of meningioma progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:14719–14724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick N. Harter.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

401_2016_1598_MOESM1_ESM.docx

Supplementary Table 1: Clinical and pathological information on the investigated cohort. The study protocol was endorsed by the local ethical committee (G-No. 4/09 SNO-09-2015) (DOCX 15 kb)

401_2016_1598_MOESM2_ESM.tif

Supplementary Figure 1: Univariate Kaplan–Meier overall (a) and progression-free (b-d) survival analysis of WHO grade II meningiomas in different meningioma subtypes (brain invasive otherwise benign, distinct histological subtype, atypical histology/increased mitoses). (b) Analysis of the cohort only of the cases where CNS tissue was present on the slices. (c, d) Stratification of the cohort in short and long follow-up after median split. Median follow-up of the whole cohort was 22 months (TIFF 1192 kb)

401_2016_1598_MOESM3_ESM.tif

Supplementary Figure 2: Analysis of number of tissue blocks and the assessability of brain invasion in the investigated cohort (a-c). Results of ANOVA are depicted (a, b). (c) Results of non-parametric paired comparisons using Dunn’s method. (d-k) Overview of different brain invasion patterns. All shown tumors are brain invasive otherwise benign meningiomas. (d) Fingerlike-projections (arrowheads) of tumor tissue into CNS tissue. (e) Irregular tumor protrusions into CNS tissue and a focally disrupted leptomeningeal layer (arrowhead). (f) Entrapped piece of CNS tissue (asterisk) invaded by tumor projections. GFAP staining of same tissue block (g) shows tumor protrusions invading CNS tissue. (h) Part of cerebellum with a small collection of meningioma tumor cells in a cluster (asterisk), deeper section of the same tissue block and GFAP staining (i) revealed unequivocal tumor invasion. (j) GFAP staining of a meningioma. Arrowheads show little pieces of CNS tissue which are invaded by a larger tumor protrusion. (k) Larger protrusion invading CNS tissue with a large reactive astrocyte (arrowhead) (TIFF 44239 kb)

401_2016_1598_MOESM4_ESM.tif

Supplementary Figure 3: Univariate Kaplan–Meier progression-free survival analysis in the cohort of all grade II meningiomas (column a) and the subcohort of meningiomas with atypical histology/increased mitoses (column b). Extent of resection is reflected by the Simpson score. STR (subtotal resection), GTR (gross total resection) (TIFF 1142 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baumgarten, P., Gessler, F., Schittenhelm, J. et al. Brain invasion in otherwise benign meningiomas does not predict tumor recurrence. Acta Neuropathol 132, 479–481 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-016-1598-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-016-1598-1

Keywords

Navigation