Alvaro Otero-Rodriguez1, Maria Dolores Tabernero2, Maria Cristina Munoz-Martin3, Pablo Sousa4, Alberto Orfao5, Daniel Pascual-Argente4, Maria Gonzalez-Tablas5, Laura Ruiz-Martin4. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Instituto Biosanitario de Salamanca (IBSAL), Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. Electronic address: aoteror@saludcastillayleon.es. 2. Research Unit and IESCSYL, Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca and Instituto Biosanitario de Salamanca (IBSAL), Salamanca, Spain. 3. Gerencia Atención Primaria de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Instituto Biosanitario de Salamanca (IBSAL), Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. 5. Research Unit and IESCSYL, Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca, Center for Cancer Research (CIC, IBM-CSIC/USAL), Instituto Biosanitario de Salamanca (IBSAL), Salamanca, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since 1957, the Simpson grading system has been considered a predictive system for meningioma recurrence. However, since then, surgical equipment and neurosurgical technique have developed extensively, so this grading system should be re-evaluated. This study aims to assess if the recurrence rate and recurrence-free survival (RFS) are different after Simpson grade I, II, and III resections in World Health Organization (WHO) grade I meningiomas. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who underwent surgical treatment of WHO grade I meningiomas located in the convexity (group 1), falx/parasagittal (group 2), skull base, and tentorium (group 3) between June 1991 and December 2011. We compared the recurrence rates and RFSs between Simpson grade I, II, and III resections in both overall cases and tumor subsets according to their localization. RESULTS: A total of 224 meningiomas were included in this study. There were no significant differences in recurrence rates and RFSs between Simpson grades I, II, and III. In each of the location groups, no significant differences were noted between the different degrees of Simpson. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that complete resection of WHO grade I meningiomas achieves excellent tumor control, regardless of Simpson grades. More aggressive attempts at tumor resection (ie, Simpson grade I) must be balanced against the risks of removing dura or damaging critical neurovascular structures. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: Since 1957, the Simpson grading system has been considered a predictive system for meningioma recurrence. However, since then, surgical equipment and neurosurgical technique have developed extensively, so this grading system should be re-evaluated. This study aims to assess if the recurrence rate and recurrence-free survival (RFS) are different after Simpson grade I, II, and III resections in World Health Organization (WHO) grade I meningiomas. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who underwent surgical treatment of WHO grade I meningiomas located in the convexity (group 1), falx/parasagittal (group 2), skull base, and tentorium (group 3) between June 1991 and December 2011. We compared the recurrence rates and RFSs between Simpson grade I, II, and III resections in both overall cases and tumor subsets according to their localization. RESULTS: A total of 224 meningiomas were included in this study. There were no significant differences in recurrence rates and RFSs between Simpson grades I, II, and III. In each of the location groups, no significant differences were noted between the different degrees of Simpson. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that complete resection of WHO grade I meningiomas achieves excellent tumor control, regardless of Simpson grades. More aggressive attempts at tumor resection (ie, Simpson grade I) must be balanced against the risks of removing dura or damaging critical neurovascular structures. Copyright Â
Authors: Jeff S Ehresman; Tomas Garzon-Muvdi; Davis Rogers; Michael Lim; Gary L Gallia; Jon Weingart; Henry Brem; Chetan Bettegowda; Kaisorn L Chaichana Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2018-07-17
Authors: Kamila Nowak-Choi; Joshua D Palmer; James Casey; Ameet Chitale; Ingrid Kalchman; Elizabeth Buss; Scott W Keith; Sarah E Hegarty; Mark Curtis; Charalambos Solomides; Wenyin Shi; Kevin Judy; David W Andrews; Christopher Farrell; Maria Werner-Wasik Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-01-09 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Brett E Youngerman; Matei A Banu; Mina M Gerges; Eseosa Odigie; Abtin Tabaee; Ashutosh Kacker; Vijay K Anand; Theodore H Schwartz Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Kai Roman Laukamp; Frank Thiele; Georgy Shakirin; David Zopfs; Andrea Faymonville; Marco Timmer; David Maintz; Michael Perkuhn; Jan Borggrefe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jean-Michel Lemée; Marco V Corniola; Michele Da Broi; Holger Joswig; David Scheie; Karl Schaller; Eirik Helseth; Torstein R Meling Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 4.379