4.5 Article

Scalp Metastases of Recurrent Meningiomas: Aggressive Behavior or Surgical Seeding?

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 84, Issue 1, Pages 121-131

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.02.041

Keywords

Cutaneous meningioma; Meningioma; Scalp meningioma; Skin meningioma; Subcutaneous meningioma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: Scalp metastases of meningiomas seldom have been reported. Here, we report a series of 4 cases of this rare event and discuss the relevant potential risk factors. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients treated for scalp metastases of meningiomas at our institution. A literature review was performed for the terms scalp meningioma, cutaneous meningioma, skin meningioma, extracranial meningioma, and subcutaneous meningioma. RESULTS: Four patients showed scalp metastases of recurrent meningiomas with the following associated clinical features: multiple reoperations (n = 4), immunosuppression (n = 2), radiation therapy (n = 3), surgical wound complications with cerebrospinal fluid fistula (n = 2), and histologic grade progression (n = 2). The timescale for development of scalp metastasis was between 5 months and 13 years after intracranial meningioma surgery. In all cases, the metastases were located close to the surgical scalp incision for the craniotomy. Previously, 11 cases of meningioma with scalp metastasis, with similar features to those described here, were reported in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Spreading of meningioma cells during surgery is a possible mechanism for scalp metastases of recurrent meningiomas. Factors associated with scalp metastases include reoperations, immunosuppression, radiation therapy, torpid course of the surgical wound with cerebrospinal fluid fistula, and histologic progression. Awareness of these features is advisable for neurosurgeons involved in the care of patients with similar profiles.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available