4.6 Review

Radiation-induced meningiomas: clinical, pathological, cytokinetic, and cytogenetic characteristics

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
Volume 100, Issue 6, Pages 1002-1013

Publisher

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/jns.2004.100.6.1002

Keywords

meningioma; brain tumor; radiation-induced tumor; cytogenetics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Object. Radiation-induced meningiomas are known to occur after high- and low-dose cranial radiation therapy. The goal of this study was to discern the distinguishing findings and characteristics of radiation-induced meningiomas. Methods. The records of 16 patients (seven men and nine women) who fulfilled the criteria for radiation-induced meningiomas were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical, histopathological, cytokinetic, and cytogenetic findings as well as the patients' outcome were analyzed. The mean age of the patients was 38.8 years and the mean tumor latency was 26.5 years. Five patients had multiple meningiomas in the irradiated field. The recurrence rate was 100% after the initial resection; 62% of patients had a second recurrence and 17% had a third recurrence. Thirty-eight percent of patients had atypical or malignant histopathological findings. The presence of progesterone receptors and low proliferation indices in these patients did not correlate with benign tumor behavior. Cytogenetic analysis showed multiple clonal aberrations in all tumors studied. The most frequent aberrations were found on chromosomes 1p, 6q, and 22. Derivative, lost, or additional chromosome 1p was found in 89% of cases and loss or deletion on chromosome 6 was found in 67%. Conclusions. The age of patients at presentation with meningioma and the latency period of radiation-induced meningiomas are dose related. These tumors are more aggressive and are certain to recur, have a higher histopathological grade, and are associated with complex cytogenetic aberrations particularly involving 1p and 6q.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available