Cited by 119Brain Metastases and TreatmentManagement of metastatic bone diseaseGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment

Prognostic factors and treatment options in patients with leptomeningeal metastases of different primary tumors: a retrospective analysis.

Open access
Oechsle, Karin, Lange-Brock, Victoria, Kruell, Andreas, Bokemeyer, Carsten, de Wit, Maike·2010·Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose Leptomeningeal metastases (LM) are associated with very poor prognosis and data on outcome are limited. We evaluated prognostic factors and treatment options in patients (pts) with LM of different malignancies in a single center experience.Methods Single center data on characteristics, treatment and outcome of 135 consecutive pts (73 solid tumors and 62 hematologic malignancies) with LM between 1989 and 2005 were retrospectively analyzed.Results Treatment consisted of systemic chemotherapy (SC) plus intrathecal chemotherapy (ITC) in 28%, ITC alone in 22%, radiotherapy (RT) plus ITC in 12% and other modalities (SC, RT, SC + RT) in 7%. Thirteen percent of pts received supportive care only (4% not evaluable on treatment). Median survival from diagnosis of LM was 2.5 months. Univariate analysis revealed age >50, interval between diagnosis of primary tumor and LM ≤12 months, lung cancer and malignant melanoma, and Karnofsky performance status ≤70 as significant negative predictors for overall survival. Positive predictive factors were response in cerebrospinal fluid and application of SC. In multivariate analysis, only SC was significantly associated with longer median survival (5.6 vs. 1.7 months).Conclusions In patients with LM an age >50, performance status ≤70%, interval between diagnosis of primary tumor and LM ≤12 months, primary tumor (lung cancer, malignant melanoma) and lack of cytologic response present negative prognostic factors. Systemic chemotherapy is significantly associated with longer survival time than local treatment modalities.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00432-010-0831-x

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Primary tumors of the meninges are quite rare, however, the leptomeninges is a relatively common site for contiguous extension of primary tumors of the central nervous system, paranasal sinuses and skull base origin or tumor metastasis which can lead to dissemination into the CNS parenchyma and poor prognosis.

    “Primary tumors of the meninges are quite rare, however, the leptomeninges is a relatively common site for by contiguous extension of primary tumors of the central nervous system, paranasal sinuses and skull base origin or tumor metastasis which can lead to dissemination into the CNS parenchyma and poor prognosis”

    From Living on the Edge of the CNS: Meninges Cell Diversity in Health and Disease (2021) · cites this paper as Oechsle et al., 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Chamberlain MC (2005) Meningitis neoplastica. J Clin Oncol 23:3605–3613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. De Angeles LM, Boutros D (2005) Leptomeningeal metastases. Cancer Invest 23:145–154 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fizazi K, Asselain B, Vincent-Salomon A, Jouve M, Dieras V, Palangie T, Beuzeboc P, Dorval T, Pouillart P (1996) Meningeal carcinomatosis in patients with breast carcinoma. Clinical features, prognostic factors, and results of a high-dose intrathecal methotrexate regimen. Cancer 77:1315–1323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Non-parametric estimations from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457–481 [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oechsle, K., Lange-Brock, V., Kruell, A., Bokemeyer, C., & de Wit, M.
Affiliations
University Cancer Center Hamburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Oechsle, Karin
Venue
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
Published
2010-03-04
Volume
136
Issue
11
Pages
1729-1735
ISSN
  • 0084-5353 (ISSN-L)
  • 0171-5216
  • 1432-1335
OpenAlex
W2059140616
Cited by
119
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
6.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Brain Metastases and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Management of metastatic bone disease
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
leptomeningeal metastasis, prognostic factors, systemic chemotherapy, intrathecal chemotherapy, radiotherapy, overall survival, Karnofsky performance status, lung cancer, melanoma, hematologic malignancies, treatment options
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Melanoma, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Metastasis, Neoplasms, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Proportional Hazards Models, Survival Analysis, Hematologic Neoplasms, Meningeal Carcinomatosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review