Survival analysis of postoperative recurrence of meningioma: 176 cases report

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-6731.2022.11.012

Abstract

Abstract: Objective To investigate the influencing factors of postoperative meningioma recurrence.Methods A total of 176 patients with meningioma treated in Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University from May 2010 to January 2011 were included. The general information, imaging findings, extent of tumor resection and postoperative pathological results were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival curve comparison and Log-rank test were used to compare the related influencing factors of meningioma recurrence. Multifactor Cox's proportional hazards regression model was used for survival analysis.Results The median progression free survival (PFS) of patients with preoperative Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS)<70 was lower than that with KPS ≥ 70 [(8.04 ±1.98) years vs. (8.08 ±1.18) years; χ² = 5.370, P=0.020]. The median PFS of patients with peritumoral edema grade 2-3 was lower than that with peritumoral edema grade 0-1 [(8.05 ±1.79) years vs. (8.06 ±1.09) years; χ² = 9.805, P=0.002]. The median PFS of patients with dural mater invasion was lower than that without dural mater invasion [(7.97 ±1.70) years vs. (8.06 ±1.09) years; χ² = 12.357, P=0.000]. The median PFS of patients with WHO grade 2-3 was lower than that with WHO grade 1 [(5.14 ±2.07) years vs. (8.12 ±0.87) years; χ² = 113.774, P=0.000]. Multivariate Cox's proportional hazards regression model showed that WHO grade 2-3 could increase the risk of postoperative meningioma recurrence (RR=15.693, 95%CI: 5.905-41.707; P=0.000).Conclusions The preoperative KPS score, peritumoral edema, dura mater invasion and WHO grade may affect the recurrence of meningioma, and WHO grade 2-3 can increase the risk of meningioma recurrence.

Key words: Meningioma, Microsurgery, Recurrence, Proportional hazards models, Progression-free survival

摘要： 目的探讨脑膜瘤术后复发相关影响因素。方法选择2010年5月至2011年1月在首都医科大学附属北京天坛医院行显微外科手术切除的176例脑膜瘤患者，回顾总结其临床资料、影像学资料、肿瘤切除程度和术后病理分级分型。Kaplan-Meier生存曲线和Log-rank检验筛查术后复发相关影响因素，多因素Cox比例风险回归模型行生存分析。结果术前Karnofsky功能状态评分（KPS）<70分者中位无进展生存期（PFS）短于KPS评分≥70分者［（8.04±1.98）年对（8.08±1.18）年；χ²=5.370，P=0.020］，瘤周水肿2~3级者中位PFS短于瘤周水肿0~1级者［（8.05±1.79）年对（8.06±1.09）年；χ²=9.805，P=0.002］，硬脑膜侵袭者中位PFS短于硬脑膜未侵袭者［（7.97±1.70）年对（8.06±1.09）年；χ²=12.357，P=0.000］，WHO 2~3级者中位PFS短于WHO 1级者［（5.14±2.07）年对（8.12±0.87）年；χ²=113.774，P=0.000］。多因素Cox比例风险回归模型分析显示，WHO 2~3级可增加脑膜瘤术后复发风险（RR=15.693，95%CI：5.905~41.707；P=0.000）。结论术前KPS评分、瘤周水肿、硬脑膜侵袭和WHO分级可能影响脑膜瘤术后复发，其中WHO 2~3级增加脑膜瘤术后复发风险。

关键词: 脑膜瘤, 显微外科手术, 复发, 比例危险度模型, 无进展生存期

HUANG Guan-you, HAO Shu-yu, WANG Liang, ZHANG Li-wei, ZHANG Jun-ting, WU Zhen. Survival analysis of postoperative recurrence of meningioma: 176 cases report[J]. Chinese Journal of Contemporary Neurology and Neurosurgery, 2022, 22(11): 993-999.

黄冠又, 郝淑煜, 王亮, 张力伟, 张俊廷, 吴震. 脑膜瘤术后复发生存分析：附176例报告[J]. 中国现代神经疾病杂志, 2022, 22(11): 993-999.

/ / Recommend / Download Citations

URL: http://journal11.magtechjournal.com/cjcnn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1672-6731.2022.11.012

http://journal11.magtechjournal.com/cjcnn/EN/Y2022/V22/I11/993

References

[1] Ostrom QT, Cioffi G, Waite K, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS. CBTRUS statistical report:primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2014-2018[J]. Neuro Oncol, 2021, 23(12 Suppl 2):iii1-105.
[2] Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, Figarella-Branger D, Cavenee WK, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Kleihues P, Ellison DW. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System:a summary[J]. Acta Neuropathol, 2016, 131:803-820.
[3] Wang N, Osswald M. Meningiomas:overview and new directions in therapy[J]. Semin Neurol, 2018, 38:112-120.
[4] Saraf S, McCarthy BJ, Villano JL. Update on meningiomas[J].Oncologist, 2011, 16:1604-1613.
[5] Yang QR, Hu ZH, Li W, Luo CD, Wang Y, Zheng ND. Risk factors of early recurrence of benign meningiomas after surgery by logistic regression analysis[J]. Zhong Liu Yu Fang Yu Zhi Liao, 2022, 35:250-254.[杨启荣, 胡智洪, 李伟, 罗川东, 王英, 郑念东. 良性脑膜瘤术后早期复发相关危险因素的Logistic回归分析[J]. 肿瘤预防与治疗, 2022, 35:250-254.]
[6] Cao M, Zhu X, Zhu XM, Zhu J, Yang LK, Wang YH. A meta-analysis of the influencing factors of progression-free survival in patients with atypical meningioma[J]. Zhonghua Shen Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2020, 36:628-635.[曹明, 朱勋, 朱晓明, 朱洁, 杨理坤, 王玉海. 非典型脑膜瘤患者无进展生存期影响因素的Meta分析[J]. 中华神经外科杂志, 2020, 36:628-635.]
[7] Balik V, Kourilova P, Sulla I, Vrbkova J, Srovnal J, Hajduch M, Takizawa K. Recurrence of surgically treated parasagittal meningiomas:a meta-analysis of risk factors[J]. Acta Neurochir(Wien), 2020, 162:2165-2176.
[8] Louis DN, Perry A, Wesseling P, Brat DJ, Cree IA, Figarella-Branger D, Hawkins C, Ng HK, Pfister SM, Reifenberger G, Soffietti R, von Deimling A, Ellison DW. The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System:a summary[J]. Neuro Oncol, 2021, 23:1231-1251.
[9] Yang XJ, Yin HF, Li Z, Yu SZ. Chinese version of simplified table of 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (fifth edition) and translational interpretations[J]. Zhongguo Xian Dai Shen Jing Ji Bing Za Zhi, 2021, 21:746-750.[杨学军, 尹洪芳, 李智, 于士柱. 2021年世界卫生组织中枢神经系统肿瘤分类(第五版)简表中译版及说明[J]. 中国现代神经疾病杂志, 2021, 21:746-750.]
[10] Kolakshyapati M, Ikawa F, Abiko M, Mitsuhara T, Kinoshita Y, Takeda M, Kurisu K; Alumni Association Group of the Department of Neurosurgery at Hiroshima University. Multivariate risk factor analysis and literature review of postoperative deterioration in Karnofsky Performance Scale score in elderly patients with skull base meningioma[J].Neurosurg Focus, 2018, 44:E14.
[11] Kazner E, Lanksch W, Steinhoff H, Wilske J. Computerized axial tomography of the skull:diagnostic possibilities and clinical results (author's transl)[J]. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr Grenzgeb, 1975, 43:487-574.
[12] Brokinkel B, Spille DC, Brokinkel C, Hess K, Paulus W, Bormann E, Stummer W. The Simpson grading:defining the optimal threshold for gross total resection in meningioma surgery[J]. Neurosurg Rev, 2021, 44:1713-1720.
[13] Goldbrunner R, Minniti G, Preusser M, Jenkinson MD, Sallabanda K, Houdart E, von Deimling A, Stavrinou P, Lefranc F, Lund-Johansen M, Moyal EC, Brandsma D, Henriksson R, Soffietti R, Weller M. EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of meningiomas[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2016, 17:e383-391.
[14] Sughrue ME, Kane AJ, Shangari G, Rutkowski MJ, McDermott MW, Berger MS, Parsa AT. The relevance of Simpson Grade Ⅰ and Ⅱ resection in modern neurosurgical treatment of World Health Organization Grade Ⅰ meningiomas[J]. J Neurosurg, 2010, 113:1029-1035.
[15] Güdük M, Ekşi MŞ, Bozkurt B, Usseli Mİ, Erşen Danyeli A, Pamir MN. Treatment and follow-up results of WHO Grade Ⅱ meningiomas[J]. J Clin Neurosci, 2021, 91:354-364.
[16] Güdük M, Ekşi MŞ, Bozkurt B, Usseli Mİ, Erşen Danyeli A, Pamir MN. Neurosurgical follow-up and treatment of a series of 26 WHO grade Ⅲ meningiomas[J]. J Clin Neurosci, 2021, 91:219-225.
[17] Nowak A, Dziedzic T, Krych P, Czernicki T, Kunert P, Marchel A. Benign versus atypical meningiomas:risk factors predicting recurrence[J]. Neurol Neurochir Pol, 2015, 49:1-10.
[18] Bertero L, Dalla Dea G, Osella-Abate S, Botta C, Castellano I, Morra I, Pollo B, Calatozzolo C, Patriarca S, Mantovani C, Rudà R, Tardivo V, Zenga F, Garbossa D, Papotti M, Soffietti R, Ricardi U, Cassoni P. Prognostic characterization of higher-grade meningiomas:a histopathological score to predict progression and outcome[J]. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol, 2019, 78:248-256.
[19] Ressel A, Fichte S, Brodhun M, Rosahl SK, Gerlach R. WHO grade of intracranial meningiomas differs with respect to patient's age, location, tumor size and peritumoral edema[J]. J Neurooncol, 2019, 145:277-286.
[20] Zhao P, Hu M, Zhao M, Ren X, Jiang Z. Prognostic factors for patients with atypical or malignant meningiomas treated at a single center[J]. Neurosurg Rev, 2015, 38:101-107.
[21] Wilson TA, Huang L, Ramanathan D, Lopez-Gonzalez M, Pillai P, De Los Reyes K, Kumal M, Boling W. Review of atypical and anaplastic meningiomas:classification, molecular biology, and management[J]. Front Oncol, 2020, 10:565582.
[22] Pereira BJA, de Almeida AN, Paiva WS, Teixeira MJ, Marie SKN. Impact of radiotherapy in atypical meningioma recurrence:literature review[J]. Neurosurg Rev, 2019, 42:631-637.
[23] Slot KM, Verbaan D, Bosscher L, Sanchez E, Vandertop WP, Peerdeman SM. Agreement between extent of meningioma resection based on surgical simpson grade and based on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging findings[J]. World Neurosurg, 2018, 111:e856-862.
[24] Poulen G, Vignes JR, Le Corre M, Loiseau H, Bauchet L. WHO grade Ⅱ meningioma:epidemiology, survival and contribution of postoperative radiotherapy in a multicenter cohort of 88 patients[J]. Neurochirurgie, 2020, 66:73-79.
[25] Li H, Zhang YS, Zhang GB, Zhang GJ, Wang B, Li D, Wu Z, Zhang JT. Treatment protocol, long-term follow-up, and predictors of mortality in 302 cases of atypical meningioma[J].World Neurosurg, 2019, 122:e1275-1284.
[26] Soni P, Davison MA, Shao J, Momin A, Lopez D, Angelov L, Barnett GH, Lee JH, Mohammadi AM, Kshettry VR, Recinos PF. Extent of resection and survival outcomes in World Health Organization gradeⅡ meningiomas[J]. J Neurooncol, 2021, 151:173-179.
[27] Zhu H, Bi WL, Aizer A, Hua L, Tian M, Den J, Tang H, Chen H, Wang Y, Mao Y, Dunn IF, Xie Q, Gong Y. Efficacy of adjuvant radiotherapy for atypical and anaplastic meningiom[J].Cancer Med, 2019, 8:13-20.
[28] Voβ KM, Spille DC, Sauerland C, Suero Molina E, Brokinkel C, Paulus W, Stummer W, Holling M, Jeibmann A, Brokinkel B. The Simpson grading in meningioma surgery:does the tumor location influence the prognostic value[J]? J Neurooncol, 2017, 133:641-651.
[29] Magill ST, Young JS, Chae R, Aghi MK, Theodosopoulos PV, McDermott MW. Relationship between tumor location, size, and WHO grade in meningioma[J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2018, 44:E4.
[30] Kuranari Y, Tamura R, Tsuda N, Kosugi K, Morimoto Y, Yoshida K, Toda M. Long-term clinical outcome of first recurrence skull base meningiomas[J]. J Clin Med, 2019, 9:106.

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export