Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 854

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of meningiomas

Open access
Goldbrunner, Roland, Minniti, Giuseppe, Preusser, Matthias, Jenkinson, Michael D, Sallabanda, Kita, Houdart, Emmanuel, von Deimling, Andreas, Stavrinou, Pantelis, Lefranc, Florence, Lund-Johansen, Morten, Moyal, Elizabeth Cohen-Jonathan, Brandsma, Dieta, Henriksson, Roger, Soffietti, Riccardo, Weller, Michael·2016·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Although meningiomas are the most common intracranial tumours, the level of evidence to provide recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of meningiomas is low compared with other tumours such as high-grade gliomas. The meningioma task force of the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) assessed the scientific literature and composed a framework of the best possible evidence-based recommendations for health professionals. The provisional diagnosis of meningioma is mainly made by MRI. Definitive diagnosis, including histological classification, grading, and molecular profiling, requires a surgical procedure to obtain tumour tissue. Therefore, in many elderly patients, observation is the best therapeutic option. If therapy is deemed necessary, the standard treatment is gross total surgical resection including the involved dura. As an alternative, radiosurgery can be done for small tumours, or fractionated radiotherapy in large or previously treated tumours. Treatment concepts combining surgery and radiosurgery or fractionated radiotherapy, which enable treatment of the complete tumour volume with low morbidity, are being developed. Pharmacotherapy for meningiomas has remained largely experimental. However, antiangiogenic drugs, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, and targeted agents are promising candidates for future pharmacological approaches to treat refractory meningiomas across all WHO grades.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30321-7

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 54 references

Cited by

See all 854

Metadata

Authors
Goldbrunner, R., Minniti, G., Preusser, M., Jenkinson, M. D., Sallabanda, K., Houdart, E., von Deimling, A., Stavrinou, P., Lefranc, F., Lund-Johansen, M., Moyal, E. C.-J., Brandsma, D., Henriksson, R., Soffietti, R., & Weller, M.
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-09
Volume
17
Issue
9
Pages
e383-e391
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2514454733
Cited by
854
References
54
FWCI
41.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of meningiomas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30321-7
The paper
Goldbrunner, R., Minniti, G., Preusser, M., Jenkinson, M. D., Sallabanda, K., Houdart, E., von Deimling, A., Stavrinou, P., Lefranc, F., Lund-Johansen, M., Moyal, E. C.-J., Brandsma, D., Henriksson, R., Soffietti, R., & Weller, M. (2016). EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of meningiomas. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30321-7

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.