Volumetric Growth and Growth Curve Analysis of Residual Intracranial Meningioma.

BackgroundAfter meningioma surgery, approximately 1 in 3 patients will have residual tumor that requires ongoing imaging surveillance. The precise volumetric growth rates of these tumors are unknown.ObjectiveTo identify the volumetric growth rates of residual meningioma, growth trajectory, and factors associated with progression.MethodsPatients with residual meningioma identified at a tertiary neurosurgery center between 2004 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Tumor volume was measured using manual segmentation, after surgery and at every follow-up MRI scan. Growth rates were ascertained using a linear mixed-effects model and nonlinear regression analysis of growth trajectories. Progression was defined according to the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria (40% volume increase).ResultsThere were 236 patients with residual meningioma. One hundred and thirty-two patients (56.0%) progressed according to the RANO criteria, with 86 patients being conservatively managed (65.2%) after progression. Thirteen patients (5.5%) developed clinical progression. Over a median follow-up of 5.3 years (interquartile range, 3.5-8.6 years), the absolute growth rate was 0.11 cm 3 per year and the relative growth rate 4.3% per year. Factors associated with residual meningioma progression in multivariable Cox regression analysis were skull base location (hazard ratio [HR] 1.60, 95% CI 1.02-2.50) and increasing Ki-67 index (HR 3.43, 95% CI 1.19-9.90). Most meningioma exhibited exponential and logistic growth patterns (median R 2 value 0.84, 95% CI 0.60-0.90).ConclusionAbsolute and relative growth rates of residual meningioma are low, but most meet the RANO criteria for progression. Location and Ki-67 index can be used to stratify adjuvant treatment and surveillance paradigms

The outcomes measured and reported in intracranial meningioma clinical trials: A systematic review

Background Meningioma clinical trials have assessed interventions including surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. However, agreement does not exist on what, how, and when outcomes of interest should be measured. To do so would allow comparative analysis of similar trials. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical trials. Methods Systematic literature and trial registry searches were performed to identify published and ongoing intracranial meningioma clinical trials (PubMed, Embase, Medline, CINAHL via EBSCO, and Web of Science, completed January 22, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were deduplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the “Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials” (COMET) initiative. Results Thirty published articles and 18 ongoing studies were included, describing 47 unique clinical trials: Phase 2 n = 33, phase 3 n = 14. Common interventions included: Surgery n = 13, radiotherapy n = 8, and pharmacotherapy n = 20. In total, 659 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 84 were defined. Following de-duplication, 415 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 115 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 29 outcome domains and 5 core areas. Conclusions Outcome measurement across meningioma clinical trials is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a core outcome set for use in future meningioma clinical trials

The outcomes measured and reported in observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma: A systematic review

Background The clinical management of patients with incidental intracranial meningioma varies markedly and is often based on clinician choice and observational data. Heterogeneous outcome measurement has likely hampered knowledge progress by preventing comparative analysis of similar cohorts of patients. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in observational studies. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to identify published full texts describing active monitoring of adult cohorts with incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL via EBSCO, completed January 24, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were de-duplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the “Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials” (COMET) initiative. Results Thirty-three published articles and 1 ongoing study were included describing 32 unique studies: study designs were retrospective n = 27 and prospective n = 5. In total, 268 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 77 were defined. Following de-duplication, 178 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 53 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 9 outcome domains and 3 core areas. Conclusions Outcome measurement across observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a Core Outcome Set for use in future observational studies

Quality of life outcomes in incidental and operated meningiomas (QUALMS): a cross-sectional cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have evaluated meningioma patients' longer-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following diagnosis and treatment, particularly in those with incidental, actively monitored tumours. METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional study was completed. Adult patients with surgically managed or actively monitored meningioma with more than five years of follow-up were included. The patient-reported outcome measures RAND SF-36, EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 were used to evaluate HRQoL. HRQoL scores were compared to normative population data. Outcome determinants were evaluated using multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: 243 patient responses were analyzed, and the mean time from diagnosis was 9.8 years (range 5.0-40.3 years). Clinically relevant, statistically significant HRQoL impairments were identified across several SF-36 and QLQ-C30 domains. Increasing education level (β = 2.9, 95% CI 0.9 to 4.9), P = .004), employment (β = 7.7, 95% CI 2.2 to 13.1, P = .006) and absence of postoperative complications (β=-6.7, 95% CI -13.2 to (-)0.3, P = .041) were associated with a better QLQ-C30 summary score. Other tumour and treatment variables were not. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the longer-term disease burden of patients with meningioma nearly one decade after diagnosis or surgery. Patients with actively monitored meningioma have similar HRQoL to operated meningioma patients. Healthcare professionals should be mindful of HRQoL impairments and direct patients to sources of support as needed

Benefits of Mentoring in Oncology Education for Mentors and Mentees: Pre-Post Interventional Study of the British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies' National Oncology Mentorship Scheme

BackgroundFormal education of oncology is lacking in many undergraduate medical curricula. Mentoring schemes can expose participants to specific areas of medicine and may address the shortfalls in oncology education. Few mentoring schemes have been designed within the United Kingdom, especially within oncology. There is a need to understand reasons for mentor and mentee participation in such schemes and to identify ways to minimize barriers to engagement. ObjectiveThis study identifies motivations for participation in an oncology mentoring scheme and its benefits and limitations to both the mentee and the mentor. MethodsThe British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies launched a National Oncology Mentorship Scheme (NOMS) on September 1, 2021. Mentees (medical student or foundation doctor) were paired with mentors (specialty registrar or consultant), for 6 months of mentoring. In total, 86 mentors and 112 mentees were recruited to the scheme. The mentees and mentors were asked to meet at least 3 times during this period and suggestions were provided on the content of mentoring. Mentees and mentors were invited to complete a prescheme questionnaire, exploring motivations for involvement in the scheme, current experiences within oncology, and knowledge and interests in the field. At the end of the scheme, mentors and mentees were asked to complete a postscheme questionnaire exploring experiences and benefits or limitations of participation. Paired analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. For free text data, content analysis was applied to summarize the main themes in the data. ResultsOf the 66 (59%) mentees who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 41 (62%) were clinical, 21 (32%) preclinical medical students, and the remainder were junior doctors. For mentees, networking was the primary reason for joining the scheme (n=25, 38%). Mentees ranked experience of oncology at medical school at 3 on 10 (IQR 2-5). In this, 46 (53%) mentors completed the prescheme questionnaire, 35 (76%) were registrar level, and the remainder were consultant level (n=11). The most common reason for mentor participation was to increase awareness and interest in the field (n=29, 63%). Of those who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 23 (35%) mentees and 25 (54%) mentors completed the postscheme questionnaire. Knowledge in all areas of oncology assessed significantly increased during the scheme (P<.001). Most mentees (n=21, 91%) and mentors (n=18, 72%) felt they had benefited from the scheme. Mentees cited gaining insights into oncology as most beneficial; and mentors, opportunities to develop professionally. Whilst mentees did not report any barriers to participating in the scheme, mentors stated lack of time as the greatest barrier to mentoring. ConclusionsBritish Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies’ NOMS is expanding and is beneficial for mentees through increasing knowledge, providing exposure, and career advice in oncology. Mentors benefit from improving their mentoring skills and personal satisfaction

Benefits of Mentoring in Oncology Education for Mentors and Mentees: Pre-Post Interventional Study of the British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies' National Oncology Mentorship Scheme

BackgroundFormal education of oncology is lacking in many undergraduate medical curricula. Mentoring schemes can expose participants to specific areas of medicine and may address the shortfalls in oncology education. Few mentoring schemes have been designed within the United Kingdom, especially within oncology. There is a need to understand reasons for mentor and mentee participation in such schemes and to identify ways to minimize barriers to engagement.ObjectiveThis study identifies motivations for participation in an oncology mentoring scheme and its benefits and limitations to both the mentee and the mentor.MethodsThe British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies launched a National Oncology Mentorship Scheme (NOMS) on September 1, 2021. Mentees (medical student or foundation doctor) were paired with mentors (specialty registrar or consultant), for 6 months of mentoring. In total, 86 mentors and 112 mentees were recruited to the scheme. The mentees and mentors were asked to meet at least 3 times during this period and suggestions were provided on the content of mentoring. Mentees and mentors were invited to complete a prescheme questionnaire, exploring motivations for involvement in the scheme, current experiences within oncology, and knowledge and interests in the field. At the end of the scheme, mentors and mentees were asked to complete a postscheme questionnaire exploring experiences and benefits or limitations of participation. Paired analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. For free text data, content analysis was applied to summarize the main themes in the data.ResultsOf the 66 (59%) mentees who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 41 (62%) were clinical, 21 (32%) preclinical medical students, and the remainder were junior doctors. For mentees, networking was the primary reason for joining the scheme (n=25, 38%). Mentees ranked experience of oncology at medical school at 3 on 10 (IQR 2-5). In this, 46 (53%) mentors completed the prescheme questionnaire, 35 (76%) were registrar level, and the remainder were consultant level (n=11). The most common reason for mentor participation was to increase awareness and interest in the field (n=29, 63%). Of those who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 23 (35%) mentees and 25 (54%) mentors completed the postscheme questionnaire. Knowledge in all areas of oncology assessed significantly increased during the scheme (PConclusionsBritish Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies' NOMS is expanding and is beneficial for mentees through increasing knowledge, providing exposure, and career advice in oncology. Mentors benefit from improving their mentoring skills and personal satisfaction

Meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an assessment of reporting and methodological quality.

IntroductionSystematic reviews (SR) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMA) can constitute the highest level of research evidence. Such evidence syntheses are relied upon heavily to inform the clinical knowledge base and to guide clinical practice for meningioma. This review evaluates the reporting and methodological quality of published meningioma evidence syntheses to date.MethodsEight electronic databases/registries were searched to identify eligible meningioma SRs with and without meta-analysis published between January 1990 and December 2020. Articles concerning spinal meningioma were excluded. Reporting and methodological quality were assessed against the following tools: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2), and Risk Of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS).Results116 SRs were identified, of which 57 were SRMAs (49.1%). The mean PRISMA score for SRMA was 20.9 out of 27 (SD 3.9, 77.0% PRISMA adherence) and for SR without meta-analysis was 13.8 out of 22 (SD 3.4, 63% PRISMA adherence). Thirty-eight studies (32.8%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA. Methodological quality assessment against AMSTAR 2 revealed that 110 (94.8%) studies were of critically low quality. Only 21 studies (18.1%) were judged to have a low risk of bias against ROBIS.ConclusionThe reporting and methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses was poor. Established guidelines and critical appraisal tools may be used as an adjunct to aid methodological conduct and reporting of such reviews, in order to improve the validity and transparency of research which may influence clinical practice

Tranexamic acid use in meningioma surgery - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tranexamic Acid (TXA) has been used in medical and surgical practice to reduce haemorrhage. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effect of TXA use on intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of meningioma surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021292157). Six databases were searched up to November 2021 for phase 2-4 control trials or cohort studies, in the English language, examining TXA use during meningioma surgery. Studies ran outside of dedicated neurosurgical departments or centres were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Random effects meta-analysis were performed to delineate differences in operative and postoperative outcomes. Four studies (281 patients) were included. TXA use significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss (mean difference 315.7 mls [95% confidence interval [CI] -532.8, -98.5]). Factors not affected by TXA use were transfusion requirement (odds ratio = 0.52; 95% CI 0.27, 0.98), operation time (mean difference = -0.2 h; 95% CI -0.8, 0.4), postoperative seizures (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.88; 95% CI 0.31, 2.53), hospital stay (mean difference = -1.2; 95% CI -3.4, 0.9) and disability after surgery (OR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.23, 1.06). The key limitations of this review were the small sample size, limited data for secondary outcomes and a lack of standardised method for measuring blood loss. TXA use reduces blood loss in meningioma surgery, but not transfusion requirement or postoperative complications. Larger trials are required to investigate the impact of TXA on patient-reported postoperative outcomes

Health-related quality of life following cranioplasty - a systematic review

Cranioplasty is a neurosurgical procedure that repairs a defect in the skull Coupled with the underlying pathology cranioplasty associated morbidity can have a large impact on patient quality of life, which is often poorly explored. The objective of this systematic review was to identify patient-reported outcomes evaluating health-related quality of life following cranioplasty. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021251543) and a systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and the Cochrane databases were searched from inception to 1 May 2022. All studies reporting HRQoL following cranioplasty were included. Reporting was assessed using the ISOQOL checklist and risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Johanna-Briggs Institute Scale, as appropriate. A total of 25 studies were included of which 20 were cross-sectional and 2 longitudinal. Most studies utilized study specific questionnaires and Likert scales to assess HRQoL. The studies found a significant improvement in physical functioning, social functioning, cosmetic outcome, and overall HRQoL following cranioplasty. Further longitudinal studies utilising validated measurement tools are required to better understand the effect of cranioplasty at a patient level