Journals / Turkish Neurosurgery / 2020 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 5

Histopathological and Clinical Features as Prognostic Factors of Atypical Meningiomas

Pages
746–757
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We believe that molecular variables determined through routine neuropathological analysis will be needed in the future.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:AIM: To analyze the correlation of clinicopathologic prognostic parameters with atypical meningiomas (AMs) and recurrencedevelopment as well as progression-free survival (PFS).MATERIAL and METHODS: The neuropathology archive and hospital records of 75 patients with AM who underwent surgery in ourinstitution between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The pathological revision was performed according to the 2016World Health Organization (WHO) criteria.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We believe that molecular variables determined through routine neuropathological analysis will be needed in the future.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

AIM: To analyze the correlation of clinicopathologic prognostic parameters with atypical meningiomas (AMs) and recurrencedevelopment as well as progression-free survival (PFS).MATERIAL and METHODS: The neuropathology archive and hospital records of 75 patients with AM who underwent surgery in ourinstitution between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The pathological revision was performed according to the 2016World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Other clinicopathological parameters, such as age, gender, tumor location, preoperativetumor size, degree of resection, Psammoma body, nuclear atypia, main histological pattern, Ki67 labeling index (LI), radiotherapy,and dura and bone invasion, were also analyzed. Statistically, univariate and multivariate analyses were assessed to determine theirpotential impact on recurrence-related prognostic factors.RESULTS: Recurrence occurred in 20 patients. The mean PFS and follow-up time were 38.9 and 44.8 months, respectively.In univariate analysis, clinical and pathological features such as age of ≤55 years, female sex, skull base tumor location, largerpreoperative tumor size, increased mitotic count, small cells, hypercellularity, sheeting, necrosis, and dura and bone invasion wereremarkable in patients with recurrence, but were not statistically significant. In multivariate analysis, increased mitotic activity andbrain invasion either considered alone or combined were significantly associated with PFS. Nuclear atypia was also not associatedwith both tumor recurrence and PFS. However, clinical features did not significantly influence the PFS.CONCLUSION: This study found that recurrence could not be predicted by the presence of any of the clinicopathological featuresof AMs. We believe that molecular variables determined through routine neuropathological analysis will be needed in the future.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARABAĞLI, P., KARABAGLI, H., MAVİ, Z., DEMİR, F., ÖZKELEŞ, E. Y. (2020). Histopathological and Clinical Features as Prognostic Factors of Atypical Meningiomas. Turkish Neurosurgery, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 5, 746–757. https://ajindex.com/articles/417648

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Abry E, Thomassen IØ, Salvesen ØO, Torp SH: The significance of Ki-67/MIB-1 labeling index in human meningiomas: A literature study. Pathol Res Pract 206(12):810-815, 2010 2. Aghi MK, Carter BS, Cosgrove GR, Ojemann RG, AminHanjani S, Martuza RL, Curry WT Jr, Barker FG 2nd: Longterm recurrence rates of atypical meningiomas after gross total resection with or without postoperative adjuvant radiation. Neurosurgery 64(1):56-60, 2009 3. Backer-Grøndahl T, Moen BH, Torp SH: The histopathological spectrum of human meningiomas. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 5(3):231-242, 2012 4. Bagshaw HP, Burt LM, Jensen RL, Suneja G, Palmer CA, Couldwell WT, Shrieve DC: Adjuvant radiotherapy for atypical meningiomas. J Neurosurg 126(6):1822-1828, 2017 5. Barresi V, Lionti S, Caliri S, Caffo M: Histopathological features to define atypical meningioma: What does really matter for prognosis? Brain Tumor Pathol 35(3):168-180, 2018 6. Barrett OC, Hackney JR, McDonald AM, Willey CD, Bredel M, Fiveash JB: Pathologic predictors of local recurrence in atypical meningiomas following gross total resection. Int J 7. Bruna J, Brell M, Ferrer I, Gimenez-Bonafe P, Tortosa A: Ki67 proliferative index predicts clinical outcome in patients with atypical or anaplastic meningioma. Neuropathology 27(2):114‐120, 2007 8. Bulleid LS, James Z, Lammie A, Hayhurst C, Leach PA: The effect of the revised WHO classification on the incidence of grade II meningioma. Br J Neurosurg 9:1-3, 2019 9. Commins DL, Atkinson RD, Burnett ME: Review of meningioma histopathology. Neurosurg Focus 23(4):E3, 2007 10. Cucu AI, Costea CF, Turliuc MD, Dumitrescu GF, Sava A, Poeată I: Are there any correlations between demographic characteristics, tumor location, and Ki-67 labeling index in intracranial atypical meningiomas (WHO grade II)? Rom J Morphol Embryol 60(2):567-572, 2019 11. Endo T, Narisawa A, Ali HS, Murakami K, Watanabe T, Watanabe M, Jokura H, Endo H, Fujimura M, Sonoda Y, Tominaga T: A study of prognostic factors in 45 cases of atypical meningioma. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 158(9):1661- 1667, 2016 12. Engenhart-Cabillic R, Farhoud A, Sure U, Heinze S, Henzel M, Mennel HD, Bertalanffy H: Clinicopathologic features of aggressive meningioma emphasizing the role of radiotherapy in treatment. Strahlenther Onkol 182(11):641-646, 2006 13. Gabeau-Lacet D, Aghi M, Betensky RA, Barker FG, Loeffler JS, Louis DN: Bone involvement predicts poor outcome in atypical meningioma. J Neurosurg 111(3):464-471, 2009 14. Hale AT, Wang L, Stro