The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Meningiomas: knowledge base, treatment outcomes, and uncertainties. A RANO review
Open accessAbstract
Evolving interest in meningioma, the most common primary brain tumor, has refined contemporary management of these tumors. Problematic, however, is the paucity of prospective clinical trials that provide an evidence-based algorithm for managing meningioma. This review summarizes the published literature regarding the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent meningioma, with an emphasis on outcomes stratified by WHO tumor grade. Specifically, this review focuses on patient outcomes following treatment (either adjuvant or at recurrence) with surgery or radiation therapy inclusive of radiosurgery and fractionated radiation therapy. Phase II trials for patients with meningioma have recently completed accrual within the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consortia, and Phase III studies are being developed. However, at present, there are no completed prospective, randomized trials assessing the role of either surgery or radiation therapy. Successful completion of future studies will require a multidisciplinary effort, dissemination of the current knowledge base, improved implementation of WHO grading criteria, standardization of response criteria and other outcome end points, and concerted efforts to address weaknesses in present treatment paradigms, particularly for patients with progressive or recurrent low-grade meningioma or with high-grade meningioma. In parallel efforts, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) subcommittees are developing a paper on systemic therapies for meningioma and a separate article proposing standardized end point and response criteria for meningioma.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of meningiomas
Goldbrunner, R., Minniti, G., Preusser, M., Jenkinson, M. D., Sallabanda, K., Houdart, E., von Deimling, A., Stavrinou, P., Lefranc, F., Lund-Johansen, M., et al. (2016) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30321-7 · Cited by 854
Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Clinical Trials
Wen, P. Y., Chang, S. M., Van den Bent, M. J., Vogelbaum, M. A., Macdonald, D. R., & Lee, E. Q. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2017.72.7511 · Cited by 435
Self-citationEstrogen and progesterone therapy and meningiomas
Hage, M., Plesa, O., Lemaire, I., & Raffin Sanson, M. L. (2022) · Endocrinology · doi:10.1210/endocr/bqab259 · Cited by 63
Kang, H., Witanto, J. N., Pratama, K., Lee, D., Choi, K. S., Choi, S. H., Kim, K., Kim, M., Kim, J. W., Kim, Y. H., et al. (2023) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.28332 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Rogers, L., Barani, I., Chamberlain, M., Kaley, T. J., McDermott, M., Raizer, J., Schiff, D., Weber, D. C., Wen, P. Y., & Vogelbaum, M. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurosurgery
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-23
- ISSN
- 0022-3085 (ISSN-L)
- 1933-0693
- OpenAlex
- W2159923399
- Cited by
- 698
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.95
- 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: Meningiomas: knowledge base, treatment outcomes, and uncertainties. A RANO review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3171/2014.7.jns131644
- The paper
- Rogers, L., Barani, I., Chamberlain, M., Kaley, T. J., McDermott, M., Raizer, J., Schiff, D., Weber, D. C., Wen, P. Y., & Vogelbaum, M. A. (2015). Meningiomas: knowledge base, treatment outcomes, and uncertainties. A RANO review. Journal of Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.7.jns131644
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.