4.6 Article

Long-term follow-up of 287 meningiomas in neurofibromatosis type 2 patients: clinical, radiological, and molecular features

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 1090-1096

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nos129

关键词

meningioma; natural history; neurofibromatosis; volume

资金

  1. Brain Science Foundation
  2. Association Neurofibromatoses et Recklinghausen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decision-making criteria for optimal management of meningiomas in neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) patients is hampered by lack of robust data, particularly long-term natural history. Seventy-four NF2 patients harboring 287 cranial meningiomas followed up for a mean period of 110.2 months were studied retrospectively. The median number of meningiomas per patient was 3. The mean maximum diameter of meningiomas at diagnosis was 14.3 mm, with a mean annual growth rate of 1.5 mm. Sixty-six percent of tumors showed no or minimal growth. In a subgroup of patients with 3D MRI, 7.3 of meningiomas (28 of patients) had a volumetric growth rate 20 or more per year. Twenty-five de novo meningiomas appeared during the follow-up (8.7) and demonstrated a higher growth rate than other meningiomas (6.6 mm/year). Fifty-six meningiomas (23) in 34 NF2 patients (45.9) were operated on during the follow-up period. Among symptomatic resected meningiomas, grades II and III tumors were found in 29 and 6 of cases, respectively, with a remarkable intratumor histological heterogeneity. Single nucleotide polymorphism array analysis of 22 meningioma samples in 14 NF2 patients showed increasing chromosome instability with increasing grade, the most frequent losses being on 22q, 1p, 18q, and 6p. This study provides clues to improve tailored treatment of meningiomas: de novo and brain edema-associated meningiomas require active treatment. Future clinical trials in NF2 need to focus specifically on meningiomas as the primary endpoint and should include patients with meningiomas growing 20 or more per year in order to assess new treatments.

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

4.6
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