4.5 Article

Clinical Outcome, Tumor Recurrence, and Causes of Death: A Long-Term Follow-Up of Surgically Treated Meningiomas

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 102, 期 -, 页码 139-143

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.009

关键词

Meningioma; Prognostic; Progression-free survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: The medical literature still lacks information about the impact of surgery and adjuvant treatment on the life of patients with meningioma. The clinical outcome, timing of tumor recurrence, and causes of death are often overlooked. This study evaluates these data taking into account tumor localization and histologic grade. METHODS: The article is a cross-sectional study of patients operated on between 2000 and 2014 in a single institution. The series has 593 adult patients (442 females and 151 males) and follow-up of 68.8 +/- 48.9 months. Imaging of 434 patients was reviewed and 379 patients/families interviewed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight deaths were related to tumor treatment/progression and 36 to other causes. After 2 years of surgery, deaths not related to tumor were 7 times more frequent than were tumor-related deaths (odds ratio, 7.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.8e19.5; P < 0.0001). Ten-year survival was expected in 85% of patients with grade I (GI) meningioma, 35% of patients with atypic (GII) meningioma, and 0% of patients with anaplastic (GIII) meningioma. Convexity tumors had about half the risk of recurrence compared with other localizations (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.67; P = 0.0002). In GI meningioma, recurrence was neither related to death nor to impairment of independent life. All patients with GII and GIII meningioma who had recurrence died. 96.3% of interviewees reported neurologic improvement or stability after the surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Histologic grade is the most important factor for long-term survival. Complete resection has to be pursued in GII and GIII meningioma but must be carefully weighed against morbidities in GI meningioma.

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