4.5 Review

Epidemiology and etiology of meningioma

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 99, 期 3, 页码 307-314

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-010-0386-3

关键词

Meningioma; Epidemiology; Etiology; Risk factor; Ionizing radiation; Hormones

资金

  1. NIH [CA109745, CA109468, CA109461, CA108473, CA109475, CA52689, CA097257]
  2. Brain Science Foundation
  3. Meningioma Mommas
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA151933, R01CA109745, R01CA052689, P50CA097257, R01CA109461, R01CA109468, R01CA109475] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although most meningiomas are encapsulated and benign tumors with limited numbers of genetic aberrations, their intracranial location often leads to serious and potentially lethal consequences. They are the most frequently diagnosed primary brain tumor accounting for 33.8% of all primary brain and central nervous system tumors reported in the United States between 2002 and 2006. Inherited susceptibility to meningioma is suggested both by family history and candidate gene studies in DNA repair genes. People with certain mutations in the neurofibromatosis gene (NF2) have a very substantial increased risk for meningioma. High dose ionizing radiation exposure is an established risk factor for meningioma, and lower doses may also increase risk, but which types and doses are controversial or understudied. Because women are twice as likely as men to develop meningiomas and these tumors harbor hormone receptors, an etiologic role for hormones (both endogenous and exogenous) has been hypothesized. The extent to which immunologic factors influence meningioma etiology has been largely unexplored. Growing emphasis on brain tumor research coupled with the advent of new genetic and molecular epidemiologic tools in genetic and molecular epidemiology promise hope for advancing knowledge about the causes of intra-cranial meningioma. In this review, we highlight current knowledge about meningioma epidemiology and etiology and suggest future research directions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据