4.7 Article

Meningioma growth dynamics assessed by radiocarbon retrospective birth dating

Journal

EBIOMEDICINE
Volume 27, Issue -, Pages 176-181

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.12.020

Keywords

Radiocarbon; C14; Meningioma; Tumor growth

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. Swedish Cancer Foundation
  3. Tobias Stiftelsen
  4. SSF
  5. Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
  6. ERC
  7. Ragnar Soderberg Foundation
  8. Ake Wiberg Foundation
  9. Jeanssons Foundations
  10. German DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) [HU1961/1-1, HU1961/2-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is not known how long it takes from the initial neoplastic transformation of a cell to the detection of a tumor, which would be valuable for understanding tumor growth dynamics. Meningiomas show a broad histological, genetic and clinical spectrum, are usually benign and considered slowly growing. There is an intense debate regarding their age and growth pattern and when meningiomas should be resected. We have assessed the age and growth dynamics of 14 patients with meningiomas (WHO grade I: n = 6 with meningothelial and n = 6 with fibrous subtype, as well as n = 2 atypical WHO grade II meningiomas) by combining retrospective birth-dating of cells by analyzing incorporation of nuclear-bomb-test-derived C-14, analysis of cell proliferation, cell density, MRI imaging and mathematical modeling. We provide an integrated model of the growth dynamics of benign meningiomas. The mean age of WHO grade I meningiomas was 22.1 +/- 6.5 years, whereas atypical WHO grade II meningiomas originated 1.5 +/- 0.1 years prior to surgery (p < 0.01). We conclude that WHO grade I meningiomas are very slowly growing brain tumors, which are resected in average two decades after time of origination. (c) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available