Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Histopathological features to define atypical meningioma: What does really matter for prognosis?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Brain Tumor Pathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Atypical meningiomas are diagnosed in the presence of: (1) three or more of the following minor atypical criteria: increased cellularity, small cells with a high nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio, prominent nucleoli, sheeting, and foci of spontaneous or geographic necrosis; (2) mitotic count ≥ 4 mitoses per 10 HPF (high mitotic index); (3) brain invasion. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) is around 50%. Due to their heterogeneous behavior, the post-surgical treatment of atypical meningiomas is controversial. This study investigated the ability of histopathological features to predict recurrence risk of atypical meningiomas. Meningiomas classified as atypical only on minor atypical criteria had low recurrence risk. Brain invasion, high mitotic index and sheeting were significantly associated with shorter disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.001; P = 0.01; P = 0.01). The presence of brain invasion and the co-presence of sheeting and high mitotic index had the highest ability to identify recurring meningiomas (P = 0.0001) (sensitivity: 90.9%; specificity: 86.7%). Our results suggest reconsideration of classification of meningiomas as atypical based only on minor atypical criteria. The presence of brain invasion and the co-occurrence of sheeting and high mitotic count may be useful to identify high risk cases, which may benefit from adjuvant treatments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Farah P et al (2013) CBTRUS statistical report: Primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2006–2010. Neuro Oncol suppl 2:ii1–i56

    Google Scholar 

  2. Perry A, Louis DN, Budka H et al (2016) Meningiomas. In: Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WK, Ellison DW, Figarella-Branger D, Perry A, Refeinberger G, von Deimling A (eds) WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. IARC press, Lyon, pp 232–245

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aizer AA, Bi WL, Kandola MS et al (2015) Extent of resection and overall survival for patients with atypical and malignant meningioma. Cancer 121:4376–4381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gallagher MJ, Jenkinson MD, Brodbelt AR et al (2016) WHO grade 1 meningioma recurrence: are location and Simpson grade still relevant? Clin Neurol Neurosurg 141:117–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Perry A, Louis DN, Scheithauer BW et al (2007) Meningiomas. In: Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WK (eds) WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. IARC press, Lyon, pp 164–172

    Google Scholar 

  6. Perry A, Stafford SL, Scheithauer BW et al (1997) Meningiomas grading: an analysis of histological parameters. Am J Surg Pathol 21:1455–1465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Maier H, Ofner D, Hittmair A, Kitz K, Budka H (1992) Classic, atypical, and anaplastic meningioma: three histopathological subtypes of clinical relevance. J Neurosurg 77:616–623

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Durand A, Labrousse F, Jouvet A et al (2009) WHO grade II and III meningiomas: a study of prognostic factors. J Neurooncol 95:367–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaur G, Sayegh ET, Larson A et al (2014) Adjuvant radiotherapy for atypical and malignant meningiomas: a systematic review. Neuro Oncol 2014 1:628–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Goldbrunner R, Minniti G, Preusser M et al (2016) EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of meningiomas. Lancet Oncol 17:e383-391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Domingues PH, Sousa P, Otero Á et al (2014) Proposal for a new risk stratification classification for meningioma based on patient age, WHO tumor grade, size, localization, and karyotype. Neuro Oncol 16:735–747

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Perry A, Brat DJ (2010) Meningiomas. In: Perry A, Brat DJ (eds) Practical surgical neuropathology: a diagnostic approach. Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  13. De la Monte SM, Flickinger J, Linggood RM (1986) Histopathologic features predicting recurrence of meningiomas following subtotal resection. Am J Surg Pathol 10:836–843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Barresi V, Branca G, Granata F et al (2013) Embolized meningiomas: risk of overgrading and neo-angiogenesis. J Neurooncol 113:207–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Simpson D (1957) The recurrence of intracranial meningiomas after surgical treatment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 20:22–39

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vranic A, Popovic M, Cör A et al (2010) Mitotic count, brain invasion, and location are independent predictors of recurrence-free survival in primary atypical and malignant meningiomas: a study of 86 patients. Neurosurgery 67:1124–1132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jääskeläinen J, Haltia M, Laasonen E et al (1985) The growth rate of intracranial meningiomas and its relation to histology. An analysis of 43 patients. Surg Neurol 24:165–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Barresi V, Caffo M, Branca G et al (2012) Meningeal tumors histologically mimicking meningioma. Pathol Res Pract 208:567–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barresi V, Caffo M (2017) Rhabdoid meningioma: grading and prognostic significance of this uncommon variant. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 76:414–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rogers CL, Perry A, Pugh S et al (2016) Pathology concordance levels for meningioma classification and grading in NRG Oncology RTOG Trial 0539. Neuro Oncol 18:565–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Góes P, Santos BFO, Suzuki FS et al (2017) Necrosis is a consistent factor to recurrence of meningiomas: should it be a stand-alone grading criterion for grade II meningioma? J Neurooncol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-017-2721-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Barresi V, Caffo M, Tuccari G (2016) Classification of human meningiomas: lights, shadows, and future perspectives. J Neurosci Res 94:1604–1612

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Perry A, Scheithauer BW, Stafford SL et al (1999) “Malignancy” in meningiomas: a clinicopathologic study of 116 patients, with grading implications. Cancer 85:2046–2056

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim YJ, Ketter R, Steudel WI et al (2007) Prognostic significance of the mitotic index using the mitosis marker anti-phosphohistone H3 in meningiomas. Am J Clin Pathol 128:118–125

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Pizem J, Velnar T, Prestor B et al (2014) Brain invasion assessability in meningiomas is related to meningioma size and grade, and can be improved by extensive sampling of the surgically removed meningioma specimen. Clin Neuropathol 33:354–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

We had no funding for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Patologia Umana dell’Adulto e dell’Età Evolutiva “G. Barresi”, AOU Policlinico G. Martino, Pad D, University of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria, 98125, Messina, Italy

    Valeria Barresi, Simona Lionti & Samuel Caliri

  2. Dipartimento di Scienze biomediche, odontoiatriche e delle immagini morfologiche e funzionali, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Maria Caffo

Authors
  1. Valeria Barresi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simona Lionti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samuel Caliri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Caffo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valeria Barresi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barresi, V., Lionti, S., Caliri, S. et al. Histopathological features to define atypical meningioma: What does really matter for prognosis?. Brain Tumor Pathol 35, 168–180 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10014-018-0318-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10014-018-0318-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation