4.2 Review

Acoustic Neuroma Growth: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

期刊

OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 478-485

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181d279a3

关键词

Acoustic neuroma; Conservative; Growth; Management; Predictors; Regression; Review; Systematic; Vestibular schwannoma

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research [05/08/01] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Department of Health [05/08/01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To undertake a systematic review of the literature on acoustic neuroma growth. Predictors of growth were also explored. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify the relevant literature. The search yielded 2,455 papers. All titles were reviewed by 2 of the authors, and finally, 41 papers were found reporting data pertinent to growth. Results: The percentage of acoustic neuromas exhibiting growth ranges widely from 18 to 73%. The percentage of tumors reported not to grow for some years after diagnosis ranges from 9 to 75%. Some ( usually less than 10%, but up to 22%) may get smaller. No reliable predictors of growth have been identified. The mean growth rate for all tumors varies between 1 and 2 mm/yr, and for only those that grow, between 2 and 4 mm/yr. However, there are cases with significant regression or exceptional growth ( exceeding 18 mm/yr). There are various patterns of growth, and a tumor that shows growth may stop doing so and vice versa. Finally, some tumors that have been stable for many years can exhibit tumor growth. Conclusion: The growth pattern of acoustic neuromas is variable and incompletely understood. As much as 75% of tumors have been reported to show no growth, supporting a Bwait and rescan policy in many patients, although there are no reliable predictors of tumor behavior, and some tumors may grow rapidly. Primary longitudinal studies are needed to better define the natural history and limit unnecessary interventions.

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

4.2
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