Risk of tumor recurrence in intracranial meningiomas: comparative analyses of the predictive value of the postoperative tumor volume and the Simpson classification

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery,
  • 2 Institute for Neuropathology, and
  • 4 Institute for Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Münster;
  • 3 Institute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, University of Münster; and
  • 5 Institute of Neuropathology, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

In meningiomas, the Simpson grading system is applied to estimate the risk of postoperative recurrence, but might suffer from bias and limited overview of the resection cavity. In contrast, the value of the postoperative tumor volume as an objective predictor of recurrence is largely unexplored. The objective of this study was to compare the predictive value of residual tumor volume with the intraoperatively assessed extent of resection (EOR).

METHODS

The Simpson grade was determined in 939 patients after surgery for initially diagnosed intracranial meningioma. Tumor volume was measured on initial postoperative MRI within 6 months after surgery. Correlation between both variables and recurrence was compared using a tree-structured Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Recurrence correlated with Simpson grading (p = 0.003). In 423 patients (45%) with available imaging, residual tumor volume covered a broad range (0–78.5 cm3). MRI revealed tumor remnants in 8% after gross-total resection (Simpson grade I–III, range 0.12–33.5 cm3) with a Cohen’s kappa coefficient of 0.7153. Postoperative tumor volume was correlated with recurrence in univariate analysis (HR 1.05 per cm3, 95% CI 1.02–1.08 per cm3, p < 0.001). A tree-structured Cox regression model revealed any postoperative tumor volume > 0 cm3 as a critical cutoff value for the prediction of relapse. Multivariate analysis confirmed the postoperative tumor volume (HR 1.05, p < 0.001) but not the Simpson grading (p = 0.398) as a predictor for recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

EOR according to Simpson grading was overrated in 8% of tumors compared to postoperative imaging. Because the predictive value of postoperative imaging is superior to the Simpson grade, any residual tumor should be carefully considered during postoperative care of meningioma patients.

ABBREVIATIONS EOR = extent of resection; GTR = gross-total resection; KPS = Karnofsky Performance Scale; PFI = progression-free interval; STR = subtotal resection.

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Dorothee Cäcilia Spille: University Hospital Münster, Germany. dorotheecaecilia.spille@ukmuenster.de.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online July 17, 2020; DOI: 10.3171/2020.4.JNS20412.

D.C.S., K.H., and B.B. contributed equally to this work.

Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.

  • 1

    Goldbrunner R, Minniti G, Preusser M, EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of meningiomas. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(9):e383e391.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Simpson D. The recurrence of intracranial meningiomas after surgical treatment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1957;20(1):2239.

  • 3

    Jenkinson MD, Javadpour M, Haylock BJ, The ROAM/EORTC-1308 trial: Radiation versus Observation following surgical resection of Atypical Meningioma: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:519.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Jenkinson MD, Santarius T, Zadeh G, Aldape KD. Atypical meningioma—is it time to standardize surgical sampling techniques? Neuro Oncol. 2017;19(3):453454.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Adegbite AB, Khan MI, Paine KW, Tan LK. The recurrence of intracranial meningiomas after surgical treatment. J Neurosurg. 1983;58(1):5156.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Bumrungrachpukdee P, Pruphetkaew N, Phukaoloun M, Pheunpathom N. Recurrence of intracranial meningioma after surgery: analysis of influencing factors and outcome. J Med Assoc Thai. 2014;97(4):399406.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Cao X, Hao S, Wu Z, Survival rates, prognostic factors and treatment of anaplastic meningiomas. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(5):828833.

  • 8

    Durand A, Labrousse F, Jouvet A, WHO grade II and III meningiomas: a study of prognostic factors. J Neurooncol. 2009;95(3):367375.

  • 9

    Gallagher MJ, Jenkinson MD, Brodbelt AR, WHO grade 1 meningioma recurrence: Are location and Simpson grade still relevant? Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;141:117121.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Gousias K, Schramm J, Simon M. The Simpson grading revisited: aggressive surgery and its place in modern meningioma management. J Neurosurg. 2016;125(3):551560.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Hasseleid BF, Meling TR, Rønning P, Surgery for convexity meningioma: Simpson Grade I resection as the goal: clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2012;117(6):9991006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Heald JB, Carroll TA, Mair RJ. Simpson grade: an opportunity to reassess the need for complete resection of meningiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014;156(2):383388.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Nanda A, Bir SC, Maiti TK, Relevance of Simpson grading system and recurrence-free survival after surgery for World Health Organization Grade I meningioma. J Neurosurg. 2017;126(1):201211.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Nanda A, Bir SC, Konar S, World Health Organization Grade I convexity meningiomas: study on outcomes, complications and recurrence rates. World Neurosurg. 2016;89:620627.e2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Oya S, Kawai K, Nakatomi H, Saito N. Significance of Simpson grading system in modern meningioma surgery: integration of the grade with MIB-1 labeling index as a key to predict the recurrence of WHO Grade I meningiomas. J Neurosurg. 2012;117(1):121128.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Pettersson-Segerlind J, Orrego A, Lönn S, Mathiesen T. Long-term 25-year follow-up of surgically treated parasagittal meningiomas. World Neurosurg. 2011;76(6):564571.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Sughrue ME, Kane AJ, Shangari G, The relevance of Simpson Grade I and II resection in modern neurosurgical treatment of World Health Organization Grade I meningiomas. J Neurosurg. 2010;113(5):10291035.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Yamaguchi S, Terasaka S, Kobayashi H, Prognostic factors for survival in patients with high-grade meningioma and recurrence-risk stratification for application of radiotherapy. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Schipmann S, Schwake M, Sporns PB, Is the Simpson grading system applicable to estimate the risk of tumor progression after microsurgery for recurrent intracranial meningioma? World Neurosurg. 2018;119:e589e597.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Voß KM, Spille DC, Sauerland C, The Simpson grading in meningioma surgery: does the tumor location influence the prognostic value? J Neurooncol. 2017;133(3):641651.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Brokinkel B, Stummer W, Sporns P. Simpson grade IV resections of skull base meningiomas: does the postoperative tumor volume impact progression? J Neurooncol. 2018;137(1):219221.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Geßler F, Dützmann S, Quick J, Is postoperative imaging mandatory after meningioma removal? Results of a prospective study. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0124534.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Hunter JB, O’Connell BP, Carlson ML, Tumor progression following petroclival meningioma subtotal resection: a volumetric study. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2018;14(3):215223.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Gaonkar B, Macyszyn L, Bilello M, Automated tumor volumetry using computer-aided image segmentation. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(5):653661.

  • 25

    Laukamp KR, Thiele F, Shakirin G, Fully automated detection and segmentation of meningiomas using deep learning on routine multiparametric MRI. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(1):124132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Xie K, Yang J, Zhang ZG, Zhu YM. Semi-automated brain tumor and edema segmentation using MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2005;56(1):1219.

  • 27

    Adeli A, Hess K, Mawrin C, Prediction of brain invasion in patients with meningiomas using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Oncotarget. 2018;9(89):3597435982.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Brokinkel B, Holling M, Spille DC, Surgery for meningioma in the elderly and long-term survival: comparison with an age- and sex-matched general population and with younger patients. J Neurosurg. 2017;126(4):12011211.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Hess K, Spille DC, Adeli A, Brain invasion and the risk of seizures in patients with meningioma. J Neurosurg. 2018;130(3):789796.

  • 30

    Sicking J, Voß KM, Spille DC, The evolution of cranial meningioma surgery-a single-center 25-year experience. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018;160(9):18011812.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Spille DC, Heß K, Sauerland C, Brain invasion in meningiomas: incidence and correlations with clinical variables and prognosis. World Neurosurg. 2016;93:346354.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Péus D, Newcomb N, Hofer S. Appraisal of the Karnofsky Performance Status and proposal of a simple algorithmic system for its evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:72.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WK, eds. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System. Revised 4th edition. International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Slot KM, Verbaan D, Bosscher L, Agreement between extent of meningioma resection based on surgical Simpson grade and based on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging findings. World Neurosurg. 2018;111:e856e862.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Shakir SI, Souhami L, Petrecca K, Prognostic factors for progression in atypical meningioma. J Neurosurg. 2018;129(5):12401248.

  • 36

    Huang RY, Unadkat P, Bi WL, Response assessment of meningioma: 1D, 2D, and volumetric criteria for treatment response and tumor progression. Neuro Oncol. 2019;21(2):234241.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Materi J, Mampre D, Ehresman J, Predictors of recurrence and high growth rate of residual meningiomas after subtotal resection. J Neurosurg. Published online January 3, 2020. doi:10.3171/2019.10.JNS192466

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Fujimoto T, Ishida Y, Uchiyama Y, Radiological predictive factors for regrowth of residual benign meningiomas. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2011;51(6):415422.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1277 1277 1277
Full Text Views 187 187 187
PDF Downloads 72 72 72
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0