Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Historical benchmarks for medical therapy trials in surgery- and radiation-refractory meningioma: a RANO review

Open access
Kaley, T., Barani, I., Chamberlain, M., McDermott, M., Panageas, K., Raizer, J., Rogers, L., Schiff, D., Vogelbaum, M., Weber, D., Wen, P.·2014·Neuro-Oncology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of patients with surgery- and radiation-refractory meningiomas treated with medical therapies are poorly defined. Published reports are limited by small patient numbers, selection bias, inclusion of mixed histologic grades and stages of illness, and World Health Organization (WHO) criteria changes. This analysis seeks to define outcome benchmarks for future clinical trial design. METHODS: A PubMed literature search was performed for all English language publications on medical therapy for meningioma. Reports were tabulated and analyzed for number of patients, histologic grade, prior therapy, overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and radiographic response. RESULTS: Forty-seven publications were identified and divided by histology and prior therapies, including only those that treated patients who were surgery and radiation refractory for further analysis. This included a variety of agents (hydroxyurea, temozolomide, irinotecan, interferon-α, mifepristone, octreotide analogues, megestrol acetate, bevacizumab, imatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib) from retrospective, pilot, and phase II studies, exploratory arms of other studies, and a single phase III study. The only outcome extractable from all studies was the PFS 6-month rate, and a weighted average was calculated separately for WHO grade I meningioma and combined WHO grade II/III meningioma. For WHO I meningioma, the weighted average PFS-6 was 29% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.3%-37.7%). For WHO II/III meningioma, the weighted average PFS-6 was 26% (95% CI: 19.3%-32.7%). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive review confirms the poor outcomes of medical therapy for surgery- and radiation-refractory meningioma. We recommend the above PFS-6 benchmarks for future trial design.

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 · 10.1093/neuonc/not330

Cites

27 of 27 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 27 references

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
Kaley, T., Barani, I., Chamberlain, M., McDermott, M., Panageas, K., Raizer, J., Rogers, L., Schiff, D., Vogelbaum, M., Weber, D., & Wen, P.
Venue
Neuro-Oncology
Published
2014-02-04
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
829-840
ISSN
  • 1522-8517 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-5866
OpenAlex
W1988927456
Cited by
270
References
27
FWCI
13.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Historical benchmarks for medical therapy trials in surgery- and radiation-refractory meningioma: a RANO review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/neuonc/not330
The paper
Kaley, T., Barani, I., Chamberlain, M., McDermott, M., Panageas, K., Raizer, J., Rogers, L., Schiff, D., Vogelbaum, M., Weber, D., & Wen, P. (2014). Historical benchmarks for medical therapy trials in surgery- and radiation-refractory meningioma: a RANO review. Neuro-Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/not330

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.