Next Article in Journal
A Comparison of Norepinephrine versus Phenylephrine to Prevent Hypotension after Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
How Does Nerve Mechanical Interface Treatment Impact Pre-Surgical Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Patients? A Randomized Controlled Trial
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/jpm14080802
jpm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Radiosurgery in Grade II and III Meningiomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Amin Jahanbakhshi
1,
Masoumeh Najafi
1,
Marzieh Gomar
2,
Patrizia Ciammella
3,
Maria Paola Ruggieri
3,
Cinzia Iotti
3,
Sebastiano Finocchi Ghersi
3,
Anne-Agathe Serre
4,
Lilia Bardoscia
5,
Angela Sardaro
6,
Sophie Boisbouvier
4,
Camille Roukoz
4,* and
Salvatore Cozzi
4,*
1
Skull Base Research Center, Rasool Akram Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1997667665, Iran
2
Radiation Oncology Research Center, Iran Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1997667665, Iran
3
Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy
4
Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Leon Berard, 69373 Lyon, France
5
Radiation Oncology Unit, S. Luca Hospital, Healthcare Company Tuscany Nord Ovest, 55100 Lucca, Italy
6
Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, 70124 Bari, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14(8), 802; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14080802 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 1 July 2024 / Revised: 16 July 2024 / Accepted: 25 July 2024 / Published: 29 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Personalized Therapy and Drug Delivery)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Meningiomas are the most prevalent benign intracranial tumors. When they are of the invasive subtypes, i.e., grades II and III, they can recur rapidly and present a real challenge for physicians. This study is focused on the use of stereotactic radiosurgery to manage high-grade meningiomas. Method: Medline via PubMed was searched from inception to December 2022 to retrieve studies on stereotactic radiation therapy for patients with grade II-III meningiomas. This study was conducted under PRISMA guidelines. Result: A total of 29 articles involving 1446 patients with grade II-III meningiomas treated with stereotactic radiation therapy were included in the present study. Of these studies, 11 were conducted exclusively on patients with atypical meningiomas (grade II), 1 targeted anaplastic meningiomas (grade III), and 17 articles were carried out on both grade II and III meningiomas. The pooled 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10-year overall survival (OS) of grade II meningiomas was 0.96 [p < 0.01], 0.89 [p = 0.01], 0.90 [p = 0.09], 0.81 [p < 0.01], and 0.66 [p = 0.55], respectively. The pooled 2, 5, and 10-year OS of grade III meningiomas was 0.64 [p = 0.01], 0.41 [p = 0.01], and 0.19 [p < 0.01], respectively. Conclusions: Although long-term prospective studies are still required, the outcomes of stereotactic radiation therapy appear promising regarding overall outcome and progression-free survival.

1. Introduction

Meningiomas are the most common benign primary central nervous system (CNS) tumor [1,2,3,4]. The majority of diagnosed meningiomas are WHO grade I tumors. In 10% of cases, meningiomas show signs of malignancy with increased recurrence rates (30–50% for WHO grade II and 50–94% for WHO grade III) and a worse prognosis [5,6,7]. Males are more likely to have aggressive meningiomas [8]. Patients with WHO grade II-III meningiomas have a shorter OS and higher recurrence rates. Anaplastic meningiomas (grade III) have a mean overall survival (OS) of 2 years despite receiving the best possible surgical and adjuvant care. It is shown that grade II meningiomas are around 8 times more likely to recur than benign meningiomas at the same age and sex. Moreover, recurring meningiomas typically exhibit greater aggressiveness than the initial tumor [7]. This is why in clinical practice, while being very uncommon, WHO grade II and III meningiomas are considered aggressive and are far more challenging to cure than benign meningiomas [6]. Malignant lesions may develop from lower-grade meningiomas over 2 to 16 years, with a risk estimate of 0.04 to 2.6% at 15 years [9,10,11,12].
When surgery is not an option, radiation therapy (RT) has become a viable alternative therapeutic option to limit tumor development. It has also been demonstrated that using stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) as an adjuvant tool enhances progression-free survival (PFS) and local control (LC) in all meningioma grades [13,14,15].
In recent years, advances in RT planning and delivery techniques, in particular the advent of the new-generation linear accelerator (LINAC) with the flattening filter-free (FFF) mode, have improved treatment accuracy and given rise to the adoption of ultra-hypofractionated RT schedules in the form of SRS or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in different oncological settings, with an acceptable toxicity profile [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25].
SRS and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) are examples of RT techniques. SRS uses stereotactic image guidance to deliver radiation with a high dose in a single fraction, but FSRT uses smaller doses delivered over three to five fractions.
Meningiomas have been observed to respond well to RT, with an increase in PFS over the long run [26,27]. Normofractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is still an option when SRS is not appropriate, such as when the tumor is large, rapidly growing, and causing noticeable symptoms, or when it is close to or involves critical structures like the cavernous sinus or the optic pathway. Numerous studies have shown that FSRT, either as the initial treatment for unresectable meningiomas such as optic nerve sheath and cavernous sinus meningiomas or after partial tumor resection, reduces tumor recurrence and improves OS [28,29]. Comparing surgical series, some studies have shown a similar tumor control rate with a lower complication rate in SRS treatment [30,31].
Many radiosurgical series lack data regarding the histopathologic subtypes and there is little information available about the results of SRS for patients with aggressive meningiomas. This study aims to systematically review the clinical outcomes of SRS in the management of WHO grade II and III meningiomas.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Object

This study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of SRS in managing patients with WHO grade II and III meningiomas. This study is designed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the registration Prospero ID is 5518835 [32].

2.2. Search Strategy

To retrieve studies addressing the clinical efficacy of SRS for high-grade meningiomas, Medline via PubMed was searched from inception to December 2022. No restrictions were made on the type of studies except for case reports. The gray literature was also reviewed through a manual search of Google Scholar. The relevant keywords were obtained from reviewing the literature and the electronic databases were searched using “Meningioma”, “stereotactic radiosurgery”, “stereotactic radiotherapy”, and “radiation treatment”, with an appropriate Boolean operator of AND/OR/NOT.

2.3. Eligibility Criteria

Studies meeting both the inclusion and exclusion criteria were considered for data extraction. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are as follows:
  • Inclusion criteria:
    • English articles.
    • Studies on humans.
    • Patients diagnosed with WHO grade II and III primary or recurrent meningiomas.
    • Original articles.
  • Exclusion criteria:
    • Non-English articles.
    • In vivo or in vitro studies.
    • Patients with grade I meningiomas.
    • Review articles, conference abstracts, letters to editors, book chapters, and case reports.
    • Articles in which outcome data were missing.

2.4. Study Selection

Two reviewers independently conducted the study selection process in two steps, a title/abstract assessment and a full-text assessment. The retrieved studies from the search of electronic databases were considered for the study selection process. First, the bi-step title/abstract process was carried out and the articles relevant to the present study object were considered for full-text assessment. Second, in the full-text assessment process, the articles fully fitting our eligibility criteria were considered for the data extraction process.

2.5. Data Extraction

Two reviewers independently extracted the data from the final included articles. The following information of the articles was extracted: (1) first author name, year of publication, age, gender, type of study, primary or recurrent lesion, WHO grade of meningioma, and occurrence of surgery; (2) RT modality, RT dose, number of fractions, LC, and survival outcomes. The extracted data were checked by a third reviewer.

2.6. Data Synthesis

The percentages of OS and PFS were used as effect sizes at each time point of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10-year OS and the 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10-year PFS. The standard error (SE) of the observed proportion was first calculated as well as the proportion of OS and PFS at each time point with their SE. The I2 statistic was applied to quantify the heterogeneity of the studies and an I2 level of 0–40% was regarded as not important heterogeneity, 30–60% as moderate heterogeneity, 50–90% as substantial heterogeneity, and 75–100% as considerable heterogeneity. The pooled proportion of OS and PFS was calculated by using a fixed-effects model when the heterogeneity of the cumulative proportion was I2 < 40%, and if not, a random-effects model was used. The calculated pooled proportion of OS and PFS at each time point was represented with their 95% confidence interval. SATA version 17 software was used for the meta-analysis of the included studies.

3. Results

3.1. Study Characteristics

A total of 375 articles were obtained from the electronic databases. In the title/abstract screening step, 300 articles were removed from the selection process (abstract, review of the literature, articles not in English) and 75 articles were used in the full-text assessment process. A total of 29 articles involving 1446 patients diagnosed with atypical or anaplastic meningiomas were finally included for quantitative data synthesis. The PRISMA flowchart demonstrates the study selection process (Figure 1). Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the studies that examined the impact of SRS treatment on WHO grade II and III meningiomas (Table 1 and Table 2).

3.2. Patient and Treatment Characteristics

A total of 1446 patients were included. WHO grade II meningiomas were diagnosed in 1121 patients, while 277 patients had WHO grade III meningiomas. Forty-eight patients had either WHO grade II or III meningiomas. Age and sex were not specified depending on the WHO grade in every study. The median follow-up, when specified, was 41.5 months. Gamma knife SRS was used for 1249 patients, LINAC SRS for 72 patients, and Cyberknife SRS for 113 patients, and 12 patients received either LINAC or Cyberknife SRS. When specified, the average dose was 15.9 Gy.

3.3. PFS of WHO Grade II Meningiomas

The fixed-effects model was used for 1-year PFS and others were calculated with a random-effects model. Six studies were included in the 1-year PFS analysis and the pooled 1-year PFS was 0.87 [95%CI: 0.83–0.90, I2: 23.5%, p = 0.26]. Also, six studies reported the 2-year PFS and the pooled 2-year PFS was 0.70 [95%CI: 0.50–0.90, I2: 97.35%, p < 0.01]. A total of 10 studies reported the 3-year PFS and it was 0.67 [95%CI: 0.51–0.83, I2: 94.89%, p < 0.01]. Two studies reported the 4-year PFS and the pooled 4-year PFS was 0.59 [95%CI: 0.12–1.06, I2: 96.27%, p < 0.01]. Nine studies described the 5-year PFS and it was 0.52 [95%CI: 0.38–066, I2: 88.87%, p < 0.01]. Two studies reported the 10-year PFS. The pooled 10-year PFS was 0.48 [95%CI: −0.01–0.97, I2: 90.56%, p < 0.01] (Figure 2).

3.4. OS of WHO Grade II Meningiomas

A fixed-effects inverse-variance model was used for calculating the 1-year OS. The pooled 1-year OS was 0.96 [95%CI: 0.92–1.01, I2: 0.00%, p < 0.01]. Regarding the 2-year OS, the random-effects REML model was used and the pooled proportion of the 2-year OS was 0.89 [95%CI: 0.72–1.06, I2: 97.73%, p < 0.01]. A random-effects model was used for the 3-year OS and the pooled 3-year OS was 0.90 [95%CI: 0.84–0.96, I2: 51.78%, p = 0.09]. The pooled 5-year OS was calculated with random effects and it was 0.81 [95%CI: 0.74–0.87, I2: 73.22%, p < 0.01]. A fixed-effects model was applied for the 10-year OS and it was 0.66 [95%CI: 0.60–0.71, I2: 0.00, p = 0.55] (Figure 3).

3.5. PFS of WHO Grade III Meningiomas

The random-effects model was used for the 2-year (I2: 57.82%) and 5-year PFS (I2: 72.60%) and the fixed-effects model was used for the 3-year PFS (I2: 0.0%). The 2-year PFS was reported in four studies and the pooled 2-year PFS was 0.52 [95%CI: 0.36–0.68, I2: 57.82%, p = 0.08). Three studies reported the 3-year PFS and the pooled 3-year PFS was 0.41 [95%CI: 0.26–0.55, I2: 0.0%, p = 0.38]. The 5-year PFS was reported in six studies and the pooled calculated 5-year PFS was 0.39 [95%CI: 0.23–0.56, I2: 72.60%, p = 0.00] (Figure 4).

3.6. Overall Survival of WHO Grade III Meningiomas

The random-effects model was used for the 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year OS. The 2-year OS was reported in three studies and the pooled 2-year OS was 0.64 [95%CI: 0.29–0.99, I2: 91.85%, p < 0.01]. Moreover, five studies reported the 5-year OS and the pooled 5-year OS was 0.41 [95%CI: 0.16–0.66, I2: 91.85%, p < 0.01]. Two studies reported the 10-year OS, with a pooled 10-year OS of 0.19 [95%CI: −0.20–0.59, I2: 96.13%, p < 0.01] (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

Adjuvant RT following surgery of atypical or anaplastic meningiomas (WHO grade II-III) is a well-known treatment and has been used by many neurooncologists [62,63,64]. However, using SRS for these tumors either as an exclusive or adjuvant treatment is a new subject that is addressed rarely in the literature. This systematic review aimed to study the efficacity and outcomes of SRS in treating WHO grade II-III meningiomas.
For patients who cannot undergo major surgery or are hesitant to take on the upfront risks of open resection, SRS may be regarded as an alternative treatment option. SRS is often considered a second treatment option for atypical or malignant meningiomas if conventional RT and/or surgical excision have failed [65]. WHO grade II and III meningiomas are uncommon and predicting their response to treatment and their recurrence rates might be challenging. Choosing the most suitable therapy is always challenging. Indeed, to identify tumors that are linked to a higher recurrence rate and lower survival, more specific and reliable prognostic variables are required [66]. A well-known predictive indicator from earlier studies is the WHO grade. Studies showed that patients with WHO grade III meningiomas often have worse survival rates and greater recurrence rates. Therefore, many authors have recommended adjuvant RT for grade III tumors and suggested deferring RT for grossly resected grade II tumors until they recur [67,68].
Although surgical excision remains the gold standard therapeutic paradigm, the substantial morbidity and death rates associated with higher-grade meningiomas emphasize the need for newer and more potent treatments. There are currently some alternative adjuvant treatments available, including SRS, FSRT, interstitial brachytherapy, and fractionated EBRT. The latter group has been shown to improve LC and enhance survival, compared to observation alone, in grade III meningiomas, even when totally resected and in partially resected grade II meningiomas [69]. For individuals who cannot be operated on or are undergoing high-functional-risk surgeries, such as those for cavernous sinus meningiomas, modern RT treatment is a viable option. RT is a second-line treatment for recurrence as well as an adjuvant therapy following surgery. SRS exhibits strong LC rates with little morbidity and a comparatively high level of evidence, particularly with gamma knife devices. The FSRT results also appear to be pretty conclusive. However, there is a paucity of prospective data available and the findings are still up for debate. Indeed, when it comes to the best patient selection, scheduling of the procedure, RT equipment, volumes, or dosages, the available data are not yet conclusive. Larger tumors and/or those that are close to noble organs at risk are typically treated with FSRT. SRS delivers a single high-dose fraction over a longer period; however, it is only appropriate for highly selected patients [70].
For recurrent or progressive WHO grade II and III intracranial meningiomas, SRS is a helpful radical option. For this challenging population, a treatment approach emphasizing early SRS for patients with discernible tumors on postoperative imaging is expected to enhance LC and OS, and decrease radiation-related sequelae [44]. To choose the optimum set of therapeutic alternatives and ensure the best results for our patients, careful patient selection is necessary.
Our study showed a surprisingly low number of studies on WHO high-grade meningiomas treated by SRS modalities. This small number may reflect the rarity of these tumor types and/or the more common use of conventional RT as adjuvant treatment. Many SRS series have no histologic diagnosis to show these rare histologies. The selected papers collectively presented some shared points: first, the marked worse outcome in WHO grade II relative to grade III tumors; second, the high effectiveness of SRS in tumor control even as an exclusive treatment; third, worse outcomes in recurrent cases, larger tumor sizes, and tumors with aggressive histologic markers; fourth, very limited SRS-induced complications. Therefore, SRS can be used as an alternative to surgical resection and/or postoperative conventional RT [8,19,20,71,72].
Some ongoing clinical trials may respond to many questions about the best management of high-grade meningiomas [73].

Study Limitations

To our knowledge, this work is the first systematic review with a meta-analysis regarding the effectiveness of SRS in the treatment of grade II and III meningiomas. The main limitation of the present review is the retrospective nature of the studies analyzed; in fact, only one prospective study was identified. The absence of prospective studies makes our conclusions less robust.
Furthermore, we decided not to include data relating to toxicity in the present work as they will be presented in a subsequent article.

5. Conclusions

This study emphasizes the need for more studies on the treatment of WHO grade II and III meningiomas using SRS. Current available studies, although reporting some contradictory results, show the clear benefits of SRS in the prolongation of PFS and OS. It can be used securely in primary WHO grade II meningiomas, without waiting for recurrence. SRS may be used as the sole treatment of meningiomas with promising outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C.; methodology, A.J.; validation, M.N.; formal analysis, M.G. and A.J.; investigation, P.C. and C.I.; resources, M.P.R., A.-A.S. and S.F.G.; data curation, S.B., L.B. and A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.C. and C.R.; writing—review and editing, S.C.; supervision, S.C. and P.C.; project administration, S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kaul, D.; Budach, V.; Wurm, R.; Gruen, A.; Graaf, L.; Habbel, P.; Badakhshi, H. Linac-based stereotactic radiotherapy and radiosurgery in patients with meningioma. Radiat. Oncol. 2014, 9, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Claus, E.B.; Bondy, M.L.; Schildkraut, J.M.; Wiemels, J.L.; Wrensch, M.; Black, P.M. Epidemiology of intracranial meningioma. Neurosurgery 2005, 57, 1088–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Qiu, L.H.; Lui, S.; Zou, L.; Yue, Q.; Gong, Q.Y. Lateral ventricular cystic meningioma: 2 rare case reports. Exp. Ther. Med. 2014, 7, 1393–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kitamura, Y.; Akiyama, T.; Sasaki, H.; Hayashi, Y.; Yoshida, K. Optic nerve seeding of atypical meningiomas presenting with subacute visual loss: 2 case reports with genetic characterization: Report of 2 cases. J. Neurosurg. 2013, 119, 494–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Louis, D.N.; Perry, A.; Wesseling, P.; Brat, D.J.; Cree, I.A.; Figarella-Branger, D.; Hawkins, C.; Ng, H.K.; Pfister, S.M.; Reifenberger, G.; et al. The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system: A summary. Neuro Oncol. 2021, 23, 1231–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Tao, C.-Y.; Wang, J.-J.; Li, H.; You, C. Malignant intraventricular meningioma with craniospinal dissemination and concurrent pulmonary metastasis. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 12, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Riemenschneider, M.J.; Perry, A.; Reifenberger, G. Histological classification and molecular genetics of meningiomas. Lancet Neurol. 2006, 5, 1045–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Perry, A.; Stafford, S.L.; Scheithauer, B.W.; Suman, V.J.; Lohse, C.M. Meningioma grading: An analysis of histologic parameters. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1997, 21, 1455–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pollock, B.E.; Link, M.J.; Stafford, S.L.; Parney, I.F.; Garces, Y.I.; Foote, R.L. The risk of radiation-induced tumors or malignant transformation after single-fraction intracranial radiosurgery: Results based on a 25-year experience. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2017, 97, 919–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Iwami, K.; Momota, H.; Fujii, M.; Natsume, A.; Yagi, S.; Toriyama, K.; Kamei, Y.; Wakabayashi, T. Anaplastic meningioma with rapid growth after omental flap transposition: A case report and experimental study. Brain Tumor Pathol. 2015, 32, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. LeMay, D.R.; Bucci, M.N.; Farhat, S.M. Malignant transformation of recurrent meningioma with pulmonary metastases. Surg. Neurol. 1989, 31, 365–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kruse, F. Meningeal tumors with extracranial metastasis: A clinicopathologic report of 2 cases. Neurology 1960, 10, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wang, C.; Kaprealian, T.B.; Suh, J.H.; Kubicky, C.D.; Ciporen, J.N.; Chen, Y.; Jaboin, J.J. Overall survival benefit associated with adjuvant radiotherapy in WHO grade II meningioma. Neuro-Oncol. 2017, 19, 1263–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mason, W.P.; Gentili, F.; Macdonald, D.R.; Hariharan, S.; Cruz, C.R.; Abrey, L.E. Stabilization of disease progression by hydroxyurea in patients with recurrent or unresectable meningiomas. J. Neurosurg. 2002, 97, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bloch, O.; Kaur, G.; Jian, B.J.; Parsa, A.T.; Barani, I.J. Stereotactic radiosurgery for benign meningiomas. J. Neuro-Oncol. 2012, 107, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cozzi, S.; Botti, A.; Timon, G.; Blandino, G.; Najafi, M.; Manicone, M.; Bardoscia, L.; Ruggieri, M.P.; Ciammella, P.; Iotti, C. Prognostic factors, efficacy, and toxicity of involved-node stereotactic body radiation therapy for lymph node oligorecurrent prostate cancer: An investigation of 117 pelvic lymph nodes. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2022, 198, 700–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Paoletti, L.; Ceccarelli, C.; Menichelli, C.; Aristei, C.; Borghesi, S.; Tucci, E.; Bastiani, P.; Cozzi, S. Special stereotactic radiotherapy techniques: Procedures and equipment for treatment simulation and dose delivery. Rep. Prac. Oncol. Radiother. 2022, 27, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Bardoscia, L.; Pasinetti, N.; Triggiani, L.; Cozzi, S.; Sardaro, A. Biological bases of immune-related adverse events and potential crosslinks with Immunogenic effects of radiation. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 746853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cozzi, S.; Alì, E.; Bardoscia, L.; Najafi, M.; Botti, A.; Blandino, G.; Giaccherini, L.; Ruggieri, M.P.; Augugliaro, M.; Iori, F.; et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for oligorecurrent/oligoprogressive mediastinal and Hilar lymph node metastasis: A systematic review. Cancers 2022, 14, 2680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Iori, F.; Botti, A.; Ciammella, P.; Cozzi, S.; Orlandi, M.; Iori, M.; Iotti, C. How a very large sarcomatoid lung cancer was efficiently managed with lattice radiation therapy: A case report. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2022, 11, 3555–3561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Najafi, M.; Jahanbakhshi, A.; Gomar, M.; Iotti, C.; Giaccherini, L.; Rezaie, O.; Cavallieri, F.; Deantonio, L.; Bardoscia, L.; Botti, A.; et al. State of the art in combination immuno/radiotherapy for brain metastases: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr. Oncol. 2022, 29, 2995–3012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Navarria, P.; Minniti, G.; Clerici, E.; Comito, T.; Cozzi, S.; Pinzi, V.; Fariselli, L.; Ciammella, P.; Scoccianti, S.; Borzillo, V.; et al. Brain metastases from primary colorectal cancer: Is radiosurgery an effective treatment approach? Results of a multicenter study of the radiation and clinical oncology Italian association (AIRO). Br. J. Radiol. 2020, 93, 20200951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Franceschini, D.; De Rose, F.; Cozzi, S. The use of radiation therapy for oligoprogressive/oligopersistent oncogene-driven non small cell lung cancer: State of the art. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2020, 148, 102894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cozzi, S.; Finocchi Ghersi, S.; Bardoscia, L.; Najaf, M.; Blandino, G.; Alì, M.; Augugliaro, M.; Vigo, F.; Ruggieri, M.P.; Cardano, R.; et al. Linac-based stereotactic salvage reirradiation for intraprostatic prostate cancer recurrence: Toxicity and outcomes. Strahlenther Onkol. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2023, 199, 554–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Najafi, M.; Jahanbakhshi, A.; Ghersi, S.F.; Giaccherini, L.; Botti, A.; Cavallieri, F.; Rossi, J.; Iori, F.; Iotti, C.; Ciammella, P.; et al. Clinical Effects of Immuno-Oncology Therapy on Glioblastoma Patients: A Systematic Review. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Santacroce, A.; Walier, M.; Régis, J.; Liščák, R.; Motti, E.; Lindquist, C.; Kemeny, A.; Kitz, K.; Lippitz, B.; Martínez Álvarez, R.; et al. Long-term tumor control of benign intracranial meningiomas after radiosurgery in a series of 4565 patients. Neurosurgery 2012, 70, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Nicolato, A.; Foroni, R.; Alessandrini, F.; Maluta, S.; Bricolo, A.; Gerosa, M. The role of Gamma Knife radiosurgery in the management of cavernous sinus meningiomas. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2002, 53, 992–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Milker-Zabel, S.; Zabel-du Bois, A.; Huber, P.; Schlegel, W.; Debus, J. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for complex-shaped meningioma of the skull base: Long-term experience of a single institution. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2007, 68, 858–863. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  29. Soldà, F.; Wharram, B.; De Ieso, P.B.; Bonner, J.; Ashley, S.; Brada, M. Long-term efficacy of fractionated radiotherapy for benign meningiomas. Radiother. Oncol. 2013, 109, 330–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jahanbakhshi, A.; Azar, M.; Kazemi, F.; Jalessi, M.; Chanideh, I.; Amini, E. Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery for cerebellopontine angle meningioma. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2019, 187, 105557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Azar, M.; Kazemi, F.; Jahanbakhshi, A.; Chanideh, I.; Jalessi, M.; Amini, E.; Geraily, G.; Farhadi, M. Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Cavernous Sinus Meningiomas: Analysis of Outcome in 166 Patients. Ster. Funct. Neurosurg. 2017, 95, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.A.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hakim, R.; Alexander, E.I.; Loeffler, J.S.; Shrieve, D.C.; Wen, P.; Fallon, M.P.; Stieg, P.E.; Black, P.M. Results of Linear Accelerator-based Radiosurgery for Intracranial Meningiomas. Neurosurgery 1998, 42, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Ojemann, S.G.; Sneed, P.K.; Larson, D.A.; Gutin, P.H.; Berger, M.S.; Verhey, L.; Smith, V.; Petti, P.; Wara, W.; Park, E.; et al. Radiosurgery for malignant meningioma: Results in 22 patients. J. Neurosurg. 2000, 93 (Suppl. S3), 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Stafford, S.L.; Pollock, B.E.; Foote, R.L.; Link, M.J.; Gorman, D.A.; Schomberg, P.J.; Leavitt, J.A. Meningioma Radiosurgery: Tumor Control, Outcomes, and Complications among 190 Consecutive Patients. Neurosurgery 2001, 49, 1029–1038. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Harris, A.E.; Lee, J.Y.K.; Omalu, B.; Flickinger, J.C.; Kondziolka, D.; Lunsford, L.D. The effect of radiosurgeryduring management of aggressive meningiomas. Surg. Neurol. 2003, 60, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Huffmann, B.C.; Reinacher, P.C.; Gilsbach, J.M. Gamma knife surgery for atypical meningiomas. J. Neurosurg. 2005, 102 (Special_Supplement), 283–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kano, H.; Takahashi, J.A.; Katsuki, T.; Araki, N.; Oya, N.; Hiraoka, M.; Hashimoto, N. Stereotactic radiosurgery for atypical and anaplastic meningiomas. J. Neuro-Oncol. 2007, 84, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Mattozo, C.A.; De Salles, A.A.F.; Klement, I.A.; Gorgulho, A.; McArthur, D.; Ford, J.M.; Agazaryan, N.; Kelly, D.F.; Selch, M.T. Stereotactic radiation treatment for recurrent nonbenign meningiomas. J. Neurosurg. JNS 2007, 106, 846–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kondziolka, D.; Mathieu, D.; Lunsford, L.D.; Martin, J.J.; Madhok, R.; Niranjan, A.; Flickinger, J.C. Radiosurgery as definitive management of intracranial meningiomas. Neurosurgery 2008, 62, 53–58; discussion 58–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Choi, C.Y.; Soltys, S.G.; Gibbs, I.C.; Harsh, G.R.; Jackson, P.S.; Lieberson, R.E.; Chang, D.S.; Adler, J.R. Cyberknife stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of atypical (WHO grade II) cranial meningiomas. Neurosurgery 2010, 67, 1180–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. El-Khatib, M.; El Majdoub, F.; Hoevels, M.; Kocher, M.; Müller, R.P.; Steiger, H.J.; Sturm, V.; Maarouf, M. Stereotactic LINAC radiosurgery for incompletely resected or recurrent atypical and anaplastic meningiomas. Acta Neurochir. 2011, 153, 1761–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Kim, J.W.; Kim, D.G.; Paek, S.H.; Chung, H.-T.; Myung, J.K.; Park, S.-H.Y.; Kim, Y.H.; Han, J.H.; Yang, S.Y.; Park, K.; et al. Radiosurgery for Atypical and Anaplastic Meningiomas: Histopathological Predictors of Local Tumor Control. Stereotact. Funct. Neurosurg. 2012, 90, 316–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Pollock, B.E.; Stafford, S.L.; Link, M.J.; Garces, Y.I.; Foote, R.L. Stereotactic radiosurgery of World Health Organization grade II and III intracranial meningiomas: Treatment results based on a 22-year experience. Cancer 2012, 118, 1048–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Attia, A.; Chan, M.D.; Mott, R.T.; Russell, G.B.; Seif, D.; Daniel Bourland, J.; Deguzman, A.F.; Ellis, T.L.; McMullen, K.P.; Munley, M.T.; et al. Patterns of failure after treatment of atypical meningioma with gamma knife radiosurgery. J. Neurooncol. 2012, 108, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Williams, B.J.; Salvetti, D.J.; Starke, R.M.; Yen, C.P.; Sheehan, J.P. Stereotactic radiosurgery for WHO II and III meningiomas: Analysis of long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. J. Radiosurg. SBRT 2013, 2, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  47. Hanakita, S.; Koga, T.; Igaki, H.; Murakami, N.; Oya, S.; Shin, M.; Saito, N. Role of gamma knife surgery for intracranial atypical (WHO grade II) meningiomas. J. Neurosurg. 2013, 119, 1410–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Erraro, D.J.; Funk, R.K.; Blackett, J.W.; Ju, M.R.; DeWees, T.A.; Chicoine, M.R.; Dowling, J.L.; Rich, K.M.; Rich, R.E.; Zoberi, I.; et al. A retrospective analysis of survival and prognostic factors after stereotactic radiosurgery for aggressive meningiomas. Radiat. Oncol. 2014, 9, 38. [Google Scholar]
  49. Bulthuis, V.J.; Hanssens, P.E.; Lie, S.T.; van Overbeeke, J.J. Gamma Knife radiosurgery for intracranial meningiomas: Do we need to treat the dural tail? A single-center retrospective analysis and an overview of the literature. Surg. Neurol. Int. 2014, 5 (Suppl. S8), S391–S395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Aboukais, R.; Zairi, F.; Lejeune, J.-P.; Le Rhun, E.; Vermandel, M.; Blond, S.; Devos, P.; Reyns, N. Grade 2 meningioma and radiosurgery. J. Neurosurg. JNS 2015, 122, 1157–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Valery, C.A.; Faillot, M.; Lamproglou, I.; Golmard, J.L.; Jenny, C.; Peyre, M.; Mokhtari, K.; Mazeron, J.J.; Cornu, P.; Kalamarides, M. Grade II meningiomas and Gamma Knife radiosurgery: Analysis of success and failure to improve treatment paradigm. J. Neurosurg. 2016, 125 (Suppl. S1), 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Wang, W.H.; Lee, C.C.; Yang, H.C.; Liu, K.D.; Wu, H.M.; Shiau, C.Y.; Guo, W.H.; Pan, D.H.; Chung, W.Y.; Chen, M.T. Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Atypical and Anaplastic Meningiomas. World Neurosurg. 2016, 87, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, M.; Ho, A.L.; D’Astous, M.; Pendharkar, A.V.; Choi, C.Y.; Thompson, P.A.; Tayag, A.T.; Soltys, S.G.; Gibbs, I.C.; Chang, D.S. CyberKnife Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Atypical and Malignant Meningiomas. World Neurosurg. 2016, 91, 574–581.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kaprealian, T.; Raleigh, D.R.; Sneed, P.K.; Nabavizadeh, N.; Nakamura, J.L.; McDermott, M.W. Parameters influencing local control of meningiomas treated with radiosurgery. J. Neuro-Oncol. 2016, 128, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Refaat, T.; Gentile, M.; Sachdev, S.; Dalal, P.; Butala, A.; Gutiontov, S.; Helenowksi, I.; Lee, P.; Sathiaseelan, V.; Bloch, O.; et al. Gamma Knife Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Grade 2 Meningiomas. J. Neurol. Surg. B Skull Base 2017, 78, 288–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Liu, X.; Shan, B.; Wang, M.; Xu, J. World Health Organization Grade II Meningiomas: The Role of Adjuvant/Salvage Gamma Knife Surgery after Initial Surgery and Prognostic Factor Assessment. World Neurosurg. 2018, 109, e352–e362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Acker, G.; Meinert, F.; Conti, A.; Kufeld, M.; Jelgersma, C.; Nguyen, P.; Kluge, A.; Lukas, M.; Loebel, F.; Pasemann, D.; et al. Image-Guided Robotic Radiosurgery for Treatment of Recurrent Grade II and III Meningiomas. A Single-Center Study. World Neurosurg. 2019, 131, e96–e107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Helis, C.A.; Hughes, R.T.; Cramer, C.K.; Tatter, S.B.; Laxton, A.W.; Bourland, J.D.; Munley, M.T.; Chan, M.D. Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Atypical and Anaplastic Meningiomas. World Neurosurg. 2020, 144, e53–e61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Kowalchuk, R.O.; Shepard, M.J.; Sheehan, K.; Sheehan, D.; Faramand, A.; Niranjan, A.; Kano, H.; Gurewitz, J.; Bernstein, K.; Liscak, R.; et al. Treatment of WHO Grade 2 Meningiomas With Stereotactic Radiosurgery: Identification of an Optimal Group for SRS Using RPA. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2021, 110, 804–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Shepard, M.J.; Xu, Z.; Kearns, K.; Li, C.; Chatrath, A.; Sheehan, K.; Sheehan, D.; Faramand, A.; Niranjan, A.; Kan, H.; et al. Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Atypical (World Health Organization II) and Anaplastic (World Health Organization III) Meningiomas: Results From a Multicenter, International Cohort Study. Neurosurgery 2021, 88, 980–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hasegawa, H.; Vakharia, K.; Link, M.J.; Stafford, S.L.; Brown, P.D.; Parney, I.F.; Burns, T.C.; Yan, E.S.; Mahajan, A.; Laack, N.N.; et al. The role of single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery for atypical meningiomas (WHO grade II): Treatment results based on a 25-year experience. J. Neuro-Oncol. 2021, 155, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Graffeo, C.S.; Leeper, H.E.; Perry, A.; Uhm, J.H.; Lachance, D.J.; Brown, P.D.; Ma, D.J.; Van Gompel, J.J.; Giannini, C.; Johnson, D.R.; et al. Revisiting Adjuvant Radiotherapy After Gross Total Resection of World Health Organization Grade II Meningioma. World Neurosurg. 2017, 103, 655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Aizer, A.A.; Arvold, N.D.; Catalano, P.; Claus, E.B.; Golby, A.J.; Johnson, M.D.; Ma, D.J.; Van Gompel, J.J.; Giannini, C.; Johnson, D.R.; et al. Adjuvant radiation therapy, local recurrence, and the need for salvage therapy in atypical meningioma. Neuro-Oncology 2014, 16, 1547–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Komotar, R.J.; Iorgulescu, J.B.; Raper, D.M.; Holland, E.C.; Beal, K.; Bilsky, M.H.; Brennan, C.W.; Tabar, V.; Sherman, J.H.; Yamada, Y.; et al. The role of radiotherapy following gross-total resection of atypical meningiomas. J. Neurosurg. 2012, 117, 679–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Cohen-Inbar, O.; Lee, C.-C.; Sheehan, J.P. The contemporary role of stereotactic radiosurgery in the treatment of meningiomas. Neurosurg. Clin. 2016, 27, 215–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Durand, A.; Labrousse, F.; Jouvet, A.; Bauchet, L.; Kalamaridès, M.; Menei, P.; Deruty, R.; Moreau, J.J.; Fèvre-Montange, M.; Guyotat, J. WHO grade II and III meningiomas: A study of prognostic factors. J. Neuro-Oncol. 2009, 95, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Palma, L.; Celli, P.; Franco, C.; Cervoni, L.; Cantore, G. Long-term prognosis for atypical and malignant meningiomas: A study of 71 surgical cases. Neurosurg. Focus. 1997, 2, E5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Pasquier, D.; Bijmolt, S.; Veninga, T.; Rezvoy, N.; Villa, S.; Krengli, M.; Weber, D.C.; Baumert, B.G.; Canyilmaz, E.; Yalman, D.; et al. Atypical and malignant meningioma: Outcome and prognostic factors in 119 irradiated patients. A multicenter, retrospective study of the Rare Cancer Network. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2008, 71, 1388–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Hwang, K.L.; Hwang, W.L.; Bussière, M.R.; Shih, H.A. The role of radiotherapy in the management of high-grade meningiomas. Chin. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 6 (Suppl. S1), S5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Biau, J.; Khalil, T.; Verrelle, P.; Lemaire, J.-J. Fractionated radiotherapy and radiosurgery of intracranial meningiomas. Neurochirurgie 2018, 64, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Christodoulides, I.; Lavrador, J.P.; Bodi, I.; Laxton, R.; Gullan, R.; Bhangoo, R.; Vergani, F.; Ashkan, K. Transformation of Grade II to Grade III Rhabdoid–Papillary Meningioma: Is Stereotactic Radiosurgery the Culprit? A Case Report and Literature Review. World Neurosurg. 2020, 134, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Lubgan, D.; Rutzner, S.; Lambrecht, U.; Rössler, K.; Buchfelder, M.; Eyüpoglu, I.; Fietkau, R.; Semrau, S. Stereotactic radiotherapy as primary definitive or postoperative treatment of intracranial meningioma of WHO grade II and III leads to better disease control than stereotactic radiotherapy of recurrent meningioma. J. Neuro-Oncol. 2017, 134, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Pinzi, V.; Marchetti, M.; De Martin, E.; Cuccarini, V.; Tramacere, I.; Ghielmetti, F.; Fumagalli, M.L.; Iezzoni, C.; Fariselli, L. Multisession radiosurgery for intracranial meningioma treatment: Study protocol of a single arm, monocenter, prospective trial. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 15, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jpm 14 00802 g001
Figure 1. The PRISMA flowchart.
Figure 1. The PRISMA flowchart.
Jpm 14 00802 g001
Jpm 14 00802 g002
Figure 2. 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year PFS analysis of WHO grade II meningiomas.
Figure 2. 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year PFS analysis of WHO grade II meningiomas.
Jpm 14 00802 g002
Jpm 14 00802 g003
Figure 3. 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS analysis of WHO grade II meningiomas.
Figure 3. 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS analysis of WHO grade II meningiomas.
Jpm 14 00802 g003
Jpm 14 00802 g004
Figure 4. 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year PFS analysis of WHO grade III meningiomas.
Figure 4. 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year PFS analysis of WHO grade III meningiomas.
Jpm 14 00802 g004
Jpm 14 00802 g005
Figure 5. 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS analysis of WHO grade III meningiomas.
Figure 5. 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS analysis of WHO grade III meningiomas.
Jpm 14 00802 g005
Table 1. Primary characteristics of included studies.
Table 1. Primary characteristics of included studies.
First AuthorType of StudyNumber of PatientsAgeGenderPrimary/Recurrence
Hakim et al., 1998 [33]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 26); G3 (n = 18)61.5 (median)-Recurrence
Ojemann et al., 2000 [34]RetrospectiveG3 (n = 22)54.29M/12FPrimary and recurrence
Stafford et al., 2001 [35]ProspectiveG2 (n = 13); G3 (n = 9)58 (median)-Primary
Harris et al., 2003 [36]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 18); G3 (n = 12)57.817M/13FPrimary
Hoffmann et al., 2005 [37]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 15)516M/9FPrimary and recurrence
Kano et al., 2007 [38]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 10); G3 (n = 2)58.58M/6FPrimary and recurrence
Mattozo et al., 2007 [39]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 11); G3 (n = 1)NRNRPrimary and recurrence
Kondziolka et al., 2008 [40]RetrospectiveG3 (n = 29)--Primary
Choi et al., 2010 [41]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 25)57 (median)13M/12FPrimary
El-Khatib et al., 2011 [42]RetrospectiveG3 (n = 7); G2 (n = 9)546M/10FPrimary
Kim et al., 2012 [43]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 25); G3 (n = 11)4916M/19FPrimary and recurrence
Pollock et al., 2012 [44]RetrospectiveG3 (n = 37); G2 (n = 13)G2: 55 G3: 61G2:19M/18F G3:8M/5FPrimary
Attia et al., 2012 [45]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 24)NR7M/17FPrimary
Williams et al., 2013 [46]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 11); G3 (n = 2)48 (median)4M/9FPrimary
Hanakita et al., 2013 [47]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 22)70 (median)11M/11FPrimary
Ferraro et al., 2014 [48]RetrospectiveG3 (n = 31); G2 (n = 4)6118M/17FPrimary
Bulthuis et al., 2014 [49]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 34)NRNRPrimary
Aboukais et al., 2015 [50]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 27)599M/18FRecurrence
Valery et al., 2016 [51]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 18)68 (median)13M/5FPrimary
Wang et al., 2016 [52]Retrospective G2 (n = 37); G3 (n = 9)60.112M/34FPrimary
Zhang G et al., 2016 [53]ProspectiveG2 (n = 44); G3 (n = 9)53.624M/29FPrimary
Kaprealian et al., 2016 [54]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 24); G3 (n = 32)5425M/31FPrimary and recurrence
Refaat et al., 2017 [55]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 75)62 54M/43FPrimary and recurrence
Liu X et al., 2018 [56]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 75)50.2 ± 14.933M/42FPrimary
Acker et al., 2019 [57]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 27); G3 (n = 8)58.1 ± 1517M/18FRecurrence
Helis et al., 2020 [58]RetrospectiveG2 and G3 (n = 48)61.226 (median)19M/29FPrimary
Kowalchuk et al., 2021 [59]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 233)60 (median)105M/128FPrimary
Sheppard et al., 2021 [60]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 233); G3 (n = 38)59 ± 14.1122M/149FPrimary and recurrence
Hasegawa et al., 2021 [61]RetrospectiveG2 (n = 68)NRNRPrimary and recurrence
Abbreviations: n: number; M: male; F: female; G: grade; NR: not reported.
Table 2. The details of SRS treatment for WHO grade 2 and 3 meningiomas.
Table 2. The details of SRS treatment for WHO grade 2 and 3 meningiomas.
First AuthorTreatmentMedian Dose (Gy)Median Fup (m)Progression-Free SurvivalOverall Survival
Hakim et al. [33] 1998LINAC1531G2: 91.7, 83.3, 83.3, and 83.3% (1, 2, 3, 4-year); G3: 92.3, 64.6, 43.1, and 21.5% (1, 2, 3, 4-year)G2: 83%(4-year); G3: 22% (4-year)
Ojemann et al. [34]Gamma Knife162932% (2-year); 26% (5-year)75% (2-year); 40% (5-year)
Stafford et al. [35]Gamma Knife1640NRG2: 76% (5-year); G3: 0% (5-year)
Harris et al. [36]Gamma Knife14.927.6 G2: 83% (5-year); G3: 72% (5-year)G2: 59% and 59% (5 and 10-year); G3: 59% and 0% (5 and 10-year)
Hoffmann et al. [37]Gamma Knife1635NRNR
Kano et al. [38]LINAC1843.460%, 50%, and 50% (1, 2, and 5-year)90%, 80%, and 80% (1, 2, and 5-year)
Mattozo et al. [39]LINAC, Gamma Knife15.542G2: 100% (3-year); G3: 0% (1-year)NR
Kondziolka et al. [40]Gamma Knife1448NR22% (5-year)
Choi et al. [41]CyberKnife2228100% and 73% (2 and 3-year)NR
El-Khatib et al. [42]LINAC1460G2: 88%, 75%, and 75% (3, 5, and 10-year) G3: 57%, 57% and 43% (3, 5, and 10-year)NR
Kim et al. [43]Gamma Knife16-NRNR
Pollock et al. [44]Gamma Knife153845% (5-year)27% (5-year)
Attia et al. [45]Gamma Knife1442.540% and 25% (1, 2, and 5-year)92%, 67%, and 52% (1, 2, and 5-year)
Williams et al. [46]Gamma Knife165092%, 73%, 63%, and 31% (1, 2, 3, and 4 years)NR
Hanakita et al. [47]Gamma Knife1823.5NR68% (5-year)
Ferraro et al. [48]Gamma Knife1834.5G2: 70.1% (3-year); G3: 0% (3-year)G2: 83.4% (3-year); G3: 33.3% (3-year)
Bulthuis et al. [49]Gamma Knife134183.4% and 64.4% (2 and 5-year)NR
Aboukais et al. [50]Gamma Knife15.256.4NRNR
Valery et al. [51]Gamma Knife 1536G2: 71%, 36%, and 23% (1, 2, and 3-year)NR
Wang et al. [52]Gamma Knife13.132.683.3%, 30.6%, 20.4% (1, 3, and 5-year) 76.2%, 25.4%, 25.4% (1, 3, and 5-year)G2: 97.1%, 88.3% (3, 5-year); G3: 66.7%, 66.7% (3, 5-year)
Zhang M et al. [53]CyberKnife1523.6NRG2: 97%, 87%, and 87% (1, 3, 5-year); G3: 50%, 25% (1, 2-year)
Kaprealian et al. [54]Gamma KnifeNR75.9G2: 56% (5-year); G3: 47% (5-year)NR
Refaat et al. [55]Gamma Knife1641NR88.6% and 81.1% (3, 5-year)
Liu X et al. [56]Gamma Knife137089.3%, 72.6%, 59.3% (1, 3, 5-year)97.2% and 89.8% (2, 5-year)
Acker et al. [57]CyberKnifeG2: 23.1 G3: 19.3-G2: 93%, 73%, and 59% (1, 3, and 5-year) G3: 93% and 46% (1 and 2-year)NR
Helis et al. [58]Gamma Knife154445.8% (5-year); 25.8% (8-year)74.7% (5-year); 56% (8-year)
Kowalchuk et al. [59]Gamma Knife1537.653.9% and 33.1% (1 and 3-year)NR
Sheppard et al. [60]Gamma Knife14.837.8G2: 84.2%, 67.8%, and 36.4% (1, 2, and 5-year); G3: 76.3%, 59.9%, and 20.4% (1, 2, and 5-year)G2: 97.0%, 82.9%, and 67.2% (2, 5, 10-year) G3: 86.0%, 50.6%, and 40.5% (2, 5, 10-year)
Hasegawa et al. [61]Gamma KnifeNR5252%, 35%, and 25% (3, 5, and 10-year)85%, 78%, and 61% (3, 5, and 10-year)
Abbreviations: Gy: gray; Fup: follow-up; m: months; G: WHO grade; NR: not reported.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jahanbakhshi, A.; Najafi, M.; Gomar, M.; Ciammella, P.; Ruggieri, M.P.; Iotti, C.; Finocchi Ghersi, S.; Serre, A.-A.; Bardoscia, L.; Sardaro, A.; et al. Radiosurgery in Grade II and III Meningiomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14, 802. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14080802

AMA Style

Jahanbakhshi A, Najafi M, Gomar M, Ciammella P, Ruggieri MP, Iotti C, Finocchi Ghersi S, Serre A-A, Bardoscia L, Sardaro A, et al. Radiosurgery in Grade II and III Meningiomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2024; 14(8):802. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14080802

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jahanbakhshi, Amin, Masoumeh Najafi, Marzieh Gomar, Patrizia Ciammella, Maria Paola Ruggieri, Cinzia Iotti, Sebastiano Finocchi Ghersi, Anne-Agathe Serre, Lilia Bardoscia, Angela Sardaro, and et al. 2024. "Radiosurgery in Grade II and III Meningiomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Journal of Personalized Medicine 14, no. 8: 802. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14080802

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop