Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Jamie Tisnado x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Ranjodh Singh, Christopher Ryan, Muhammad O. Chohan, Jamie Tisnado, Georgios F. Hadjigeorgiou and Mark H. Bilsky

Extracranial meningioma metastases (EMM) occur in 0.1% of intracranial meningioma patients and are more commonly seen in those with atypical and anaplastic histologies. While the lungs and pleura are the most common site of EMM, intraspinal and vertebral EMM also occur and are not well described in the literature. Although the presence of EMM can worsen prognosis, no standard of care has been established for EMM management.

All patients treated for recurrent atypical/anaplastic meningiomas between January 1985 and July 2014 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were screened for intraspinal and vertebral EMM. Of these patients, 2 were identified as having recurrent meningioma complicated by vertebral or intraspinal EMM. A review of the literature was also conducted. The PubMed database was screened for intraspinal and vertebral EMM cases reported in the literature from 1985 to 2015. Nineteen articles were identified from the literature and included 24 individual cases with a total of 34 vertebral or intraspinal EMM. Forty-two percent (10/24) of patients with vertebral or intraspinal EMM had WHO Grade I tumors. Furthermore, 25% (6/24) of vertebral and intraspinal EMM occurred after the primary tumor but prior to any recurrence.

This paper highlights that vertebral and intraspinal EMM can occur in patients with WHO Grade I meningiomas and can occur before tumor recurrence. This challenges the notion that EMM are seen primarily in high-grade atypical and anaplastic meningiomas.

Full access

Ranjodh Singh, Zhiping Zhou, Jamie Tisnado, Sofia Haque, Kyung K. Peck, Robert J. Young, Apostolos John Tsiouris, Sunitha B. Thakur and Mark M. Souweidane


Accurately determining diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) tumor volume is clinically important. The aims of the current study were to 1) measure DIPG volumes using methods that require different degrees of subjective judgment; and 2) evaluate interobserver agreement of measurements made using these methods.


Eight patients from a Phase I clinical trial testing convection-enhanced delivery (CED) of a therapeutic antibody were included in the study. Pre-CED, post–radiation therapy axial T2-weighted images were analyzed using 2 methods requiring high degrees of subjective judgment (picture archiving and communication system [PACS] polygon and Volume Viewer auto-contour methods) and 1 method requiring a low degree of subjective judgment (k-means clustering segmentation) to determine tumor volumes. Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were calculated to assess interobserver agreement.


The CCCs of measurements made by 2 observers with the PACS polygon and the Volume Viewer auto-contour methods were 0.9465 (lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit 0.8472) and 0.7514 (lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit 0.3143), respectively. Both were considered poor agreement. The CCC of measurements made using k-means clustering segmentation was 0.9938 (lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit 0.9772), which was considered substantial strength of agreement.


The poor interobserver agreement of PACS polygon and Volume Viewer auto-contour methods highlighted the difficulty in consistently measuring DIPG tumor volumes using methods requiring high degrees of subjective judgment. k-means clustering segmentation, which requires a low degree of subjective judgment, showed better interobserver agreement and produced tumor volumes with delineated borders.