Explore Online Education
Apply for Membership
Access CNS Guidelines on the CNS+ App
Visit the D.C. Press Room
2022 CNS Annual Meeting
download pdf Neurosurgery, 2017
Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) and the Section on Tumors
Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS)
Michael E. Sughrue, MD1, Kar-Ming Fung, MD, PhD2, Jamie J. Van Gompel, MD3,4, Jo Elle G. Peterson, MD2, Jeffrey J. Olson, MD5
1.Department of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA2.Department of Pathology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA3.Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA4.Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA5.Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Michael E. Sughrue, MDDepartment of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Oklahoma1000 N. Lincoln, Suite 4000Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104Telephone: 405-271-4912Email: Michael-Sughrue@ouhsc.edu
Keywords: Acoustic neuroma, histopathology, pathology, prognosis, vestibular schwannoma
No part of this manuscript has been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.
LI: Labeling indexNF2: Neurofibromatosis 2PCNA: Proliferating cell nuclear antigenVEGF: Vascular endothelial growth factorVS: Vestibular schwannoma
Adults diagnosed with vestibular schwannomas (VSs).
What is the prognostic significance of Antoni A versus B histologic patterns in VSs?
No recommendations can be made because of a lack of adequate data.
What is the prognostic significance of mitotic figures seen in vestibular schwannoma specimens?
No recommendations can be made due to a lack of adequate data.
Are there other light microscopic features that predict clinical behavior of vestibular schwannomas?
Does the KI-67 labeling index predict clinical behavior of vestibular schwannomas?
Does the proliferating cell nuclear antigen labeling index predict clinical behavior of vestibular schwannomas?
Does degree of vascular endothelial growth factor expression predict clinical behavior of vestibular schwannomas?
With the diagnosis of vestibular schwannomas (VSs), the ability to prognosticate about the eventual outcome and disease control is challenging, given the complex set of circumstances in patients with recurrent or residual tumors. The present systematic review seeks to summarize the literature on these topics to provide clinical practice guidelines based on a robust systematic review of the literature and to identify gaps in our knowledge and suggest avenues for future study.
The objectives of this paper are to determine what is known about the prognostic (ie, factors that predict recurrence or clinically aggressive behavior) significance of histopathologic features and immunohistochemical markers of VSs. To address these objectives, the information sought is divided into a set of key questions:
After establishing VS management as a priority for guideline development, the Joint Tumor Section of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and the Guidelines Committee of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons selected a multidisciplinary group of individuals to carry out this project. The entire group of individuals was screened for conflict of interest and then assembled into smaller groups by general components of management. These groups then agreed upon the main questions pertinent to these management components and shared them with the overall group for modification. The task force was divided into groups by management topic to evaluate the literature and write the guidelines.
The task force group assigned to VS pathology collaborated with a medical librarian to search for articles published between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2014. Two electronic databases, including PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched. Strategies for searching electronic databases were constructed using previously published search strategies to identify relevant studies (Figure 1 and Table 1).1–8
The task force group supplemented searches of electronic databases with manual screening of the bibliographies of all retrieved publications. The task force group also searched the bibliographies of recent systematic reviews and other review articles for potentially relevant citations. All articles identified are subject to the study selection criteria listed below. As noted above, the guideline committee also examines lists of included and excluded studies for errors and omissions.
A total of 688 citations were manually reviewed by the team with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria as outlined below. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts to determine those worthy of full-text review. These two sets of data were compared for agreement by a third party. Inconsistencies were re-reviewed and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Citations that considered adult patients focusing on surgical treatment of VSs were considered. The following inclusions and exclusions were then applied:
The authors did not include systematic reviews, guidelines, or meta-analyses conducted by other authors. These documents were developed using different inclusion criteria than those specified in this guideline. Therefore, they may include studies that do not meet the inclusion criteria stated above. The authors recalled these documents if their abstracts suggested that they might address one of the recommendations presented here, and the bibliographies were searched for additional studies.
The articles deemed relevant for full-text review were then reviewed, and the study design, topic evaluated, and conclusions were extracted. The items in the above-mentioned inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied before inclusion in the final dataset. For some questions, it became apparent that the data in the full-text articles were not able to provide meaningful support for any form of recommendation. These questions were dropped from the list of those that led to recommendations, and their topics were then moved for discussion in the “Conclusion and Key Issues for Future Investigations” section at the end of this article.
The possibility of systematic bias in results was addressed by first stratifying the evidence based on the class of evidence quality, which highlights the limitations in this literature. Given the sparsity of evidence for many of these questions, formal methods for studying publication bias such as funnel plots were not possible.
In addition, one obvious bias inherent to these studies is selection bias. For a patient to be in a pathology study, that patient, by definition, underwent microsurgical resection, which inherently biases the results toward larger and probably more aggressive tumors than would be seen in a cohort of all VSs. However, it is important to note that this bias is uniform across all studies of this type. Therefore, while individual practitioners may have skewed results by differences in case selection, there is no clear mechanism by which these biases are systematically distributed.
The concept of linking evidence to recommendations has been further formalized by the American Medical Association (AMA) and many specialty societies, including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS), and the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). This formalization involves the designation of specific relationships between the strength of evidence and the strength of recommendations to avoid ambiguity. In the paradigm for prognostic evidence, evidence is classified based on the following 5 technical criteria: 1) Was a well-defined representative sample of patients assembled at a common (usually early) point in the course of their disease?, 2) Was patient follow-up sufficiently long and complete?, 3) Were objective outcome criteria applied in a “blinded” fashion?, 4) If subgroups with different prognoses were identified, was there adjustment for important prognostic factors?, 5) If specific prognostic factors were identified, was there validation in an independent “test set” group of patients?
Class I evidence, defined as studies which meet all 5 criteria, is used to support recommendations of the strongest type, defined as level 1 recommendations, indicating a high degree of clinical certainty. Studies which meet 4 or 5 criteria are designated as class II evidence. These are used to support recommendations defined as level 2, reflecting a moderate degree of clinical certainty. All other studies are considered class III evidence and support level 3 recommendations, reflecting unclear clinical certainty. A summary of these categories of evidence can be viewed at here.
What is the prognostic significance of Antoni A vs B histologic patterns in vestibular schwannomas?
The task force identified 3 studies that were retrospective and specifically addressed some aspect of the question of whether Antoni A versus B versus A/B-type histology influenced prognosis in VS patients (Table 2).9–11 In these studies, this determination was made based on subjective binary determinations of the pathologist and correlated with some type of clinical outcome.
Two studies9,10 found that the tumor pattern did not correlate with preoperative tumor growth rates. Another study11 found that Antoni B type tumors were more likely to have preoperative facial palsy than Antoni A or Antoni A/B type tumors. None of these studies addressed postoperative outcomes based on these findings. The definition of these terms is vague and subjective, and therefore the reliability of these data is unclear. Misclassification bias is clearly possible. These studies are all retrospective; therefore, case selection bias, bias caused by a loss of data, and publication bias all play a role. Because of the limited number of studies, study bias is difficult to assess.
Antoni A versus B tumor patterns do not seem to predict growth rates, but these tumors may vary in their preoperative risk to the facial nerve. A single study showed Antoni B tumors might lead to risk to the facial nerve, which should be further explored in future research.11 Presently, there are no data supporting using Antoni A versus B tumor patterns in prognostication of patients with VSs. It should be noted that this would be a difficult topic to study in a truly quantitative or semiquantitative manner that would realistically address this topic.
Presently, no meaningful recommendations can be made about this topic.
Three studies were identified that specifically addressed some aspect of the question of whether the presence of mitoses in the tumor specimen influenced prognosis in VS patients (Table 2). In 2 of these studies, the number or presence of mitoses were correlated with preoperative clinical behavior.9,12 In 1 study,13 mitoses were correlated with rates of growth of recurrent tumors.
One study9 found that mitoses did not correlate with preoperative tumor growth rates. Another study12 found that mitoses did not correlate with preoperative hearing loss. Finally, Hwang et al13 studied a group of patients with recurrent tumors and found that there was no correlation between the presence of mitoses and rates of growth at the time of recurrence (Table 2). The retrospective nature of these studies leaves them at risk for selection and publication bias, and unintentional data entry oversights and neglect. None of these studies addressed the postsurgical course of the patient after the specimen in question was resected. Therefore, it is unclear if these findings are predictive of future behavior of the tumor.
The limited studies available do not suggest that the presence of mitoses on light microscopy portends a poorer or different prognosis. No recommendations for against a relationship between mitoses and postoperative prognosis can be made.
Two studies addressed the prognostic significance of tumor cell density. One9 studied the relationship between cell density and preoperative growth rate, and another13 studied cell density and its relationship to growth rate of recurrent tumors before repeat surgery. Both studies assessed density in a semiquantitative manner using cell counting techniques.
Two studies addressed the prognostic significance of tumor microhemorrhage. One12 studied the relationship between hearing loss, and another14 studied extent of hemosiderin deposition and its relationship to tumor size.
Two studies were identified that correlated tumor vessel density with tumor progression leading up to surgery.13,15 Another study13 was found that addressed the relationship between nuclear pleomorphism and growth rate (Table 2).
Both studies that addressed cell density found that increased cell density was correlated with faster preoperative tumor growth. Postoperative tumor growth was not addressed. Intratumoral microhemorrhage was found to predict preoperative hearing loss12 and to correlate with larger preoperative tumor size.14 One study addressing tumor vessel density15 found that increased tumor vessel density correlated with a faster preoperative tumor course. The other study13 that studied specimens from recurrent VS patients found that faster growing recurrent tumors did not have a higher microvascular density than slower growing ones. The only study addressing pleomorphism did not find a significant difference between the groups.13
None of these studies addressed the postsurgical course of the patient after the specimen in question was resected. Therefore, it is unclear if these findings are predictive of future behavior of the tumor. The retrospective nature of these studies leave them at risk for selection and publication bias, and unintentional data entry oversights and neglect. Because of the limited number of studies, it is difficult to determine across study bias. In addition, these studies were performed in different manners to address different endpoints.
The limited literature in this area suggests a few interesting histopathologic features that correlate with worse preoperative behavior in some cases. For example, cell density and microhemorrhage have been linked to adverse clinical traits in two studies.12,14 It is important, however, to note that none of these studies relates a histologic trait to a future clinical behavior, which is a fundamental trait of a clinical useful biomarker. Therefore, caution should be applied before clinical use of any of these histologic features in decision making. Cell density and the presence of extensive microhemorrhage may correlate with worse preoperative behavior. Microvascular density and nuclear pleomorphism are of unclear significance. None of these factors have been studied in relation to postoperative prognosis.
Thus presently, no recommendations can be made regarding the relationship between light microscopic features and postoperative prognosis.
Our searches identified 10 studies that addressed the relationship between KI-67 (MIB-1) LIs and the clinical behavior of VS tumors (Table 3). Four studies10,14,16,17 examined the relationship between the KI-67 LI and preoperative tumor size. Four studies looked at the relationship between KI-67 LI and preoperative growth rate18–20 or the rate of clinical progression.17 Two studies compared the relationship between KI-67 LI and tumor growth rate of recurrent tumors.13,21 Finally, 2 studies compared the KI-67 LI between neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) and sporadic VS tumors.22, 23
All 4 studies addressing the relationship between tumor size at time of surgery and KI-67 LI found no relationship between tumor size and the KI-67 LI.10,14,16,17 Similarly, both studies on the topic found that NF2 tumors have a higher KI-67 LI than sporadic VSs.22,23
Charabi et al17 found that elevated KI-67 LIs correlated with a shorter duration of preoperative symptoms. One study19 found that KI-67 LI elevation correlated with faster preoperative tumor growth rate, while 2 found that they did not.18,20 The 2 studies, which determined the relationship between tumor growth rate in recurrent VS cases, both found that KI-67 LI were related to growth rate. One13 found that faster growing tumors undergoing repeat surgery had higher KI-67 LIs than slower-growing tumors undergoing repeat surgery. Another21 found that tumors with elevated KI-67 LIs had fast tumor doubling times compared to lower KI-67 LI tumors, and that there was a direct logarithmic relationship between tumor doubling times and KI-67 LIs.
These studies all used different methods for quantifying tumor growth rate. In addition, the method for determining KI-67 LIs were often different, varying between measuring the number of positive cells per high-powered field to a quantitative fraction of cells. The data were also studied using arbitrary cutoffs or correlation analysis in different studies, making it difficult to extrapolate and compare data from different studies. The retrospective nature of all but 1 of these studies leave them at risk for selection and publication bias and unintentional data entry oversights and neglect. There is only 1 study,21 which looked at the KI-67 LI as a predictor of future behavior (ie, prognosis), and even then, only studied this in a subset of tumors that had recurred. Therefore, it is unclear if any of these findings are predictive of future behavior of the tumor.
In short, no recommendations can be made regarding the relationship of KI-67 and postoperative prognosis.
While it seems reasonable to hypothesize that tumors with greater fractions of dividing cells might behave more clinically aggressively, especially before surgery, the data are limited and more mixed on this topic than would be expected. Most importantly, there are few data that attempt to determine if a patient with elevated KI-67 is actually at greater risk of recurrence after surgery, which is the fundamental question a prognostic biomarker is expected to try to answer. The results of studies that relate KI-67 LIs to tumor behavior are mixed. It is unclear if tumors with higher KI-67 LIs are growing faster on imaging. In addition, there are only limited studies attempting to determine if having an elevated KI-67 LI puts a patient at risk for recurrence or more aggressive tumor behavior.
The literature search identified three studies that addressed the relationship between PCNA LIs and the clinical behavior of VS tumors (Table 4). Two studies9,19 correlated PCNA LIs with preoperative tumor growth rate. One study compared the PCNA LI between NF2 and sporadic VS tumors.23
One study19 found that PCNA LI elevation (above the arbitrary cutoff of >40% positive cells) correlated with faster preoperative tumor growth rate. The other study compared the PCNA with preoperative growth rate and found a direct correlation between the LI data and growth rate.9 Similar to their KI-67 LI results,23 Antinheimo et al found that NF2 VS tumors had higher LIs than sporadic tumors. The retrospective nature of these studies leaves them at risk for selection and publication bias and unintentional data entry oversights and neglect. None of these studies attempted to determine the relationship between PNCA indices and postoperative outcomes. Therefore, it is unclear if any of these findings are predictive of the future behavior of the tumor.
As with KI-67, when studying PCNA, the authors were surprised to find a general lack of data trying to determine if these indices actually predict future tumor behavior. These studies are obviously more challenging to perform, but are essential to determine if clinicians should use these LIs in clinical decision making. Therefore, while it is reasonable to think that a higher cell proliferation index might suggest that a tumor may be biologically more aggressive in the period before surgery, there are essentially no data to suggest that these tests should guide clinical decision making. The limited data suggest that tumors with higher PCNA LI grow faster; however, whether this predicts future behavior is presently unclear. PCNA LIs are best viewed as experimental data at the present time as it is not certain what their relationship is to prognosis.
In short, no recommendations can be made regarding the use of PCNA in clinical practice.
The literature searches identified 4 studies that addressed the relationship between VEGF levels and the clinical behavior of VS tumors (Table 5). Two studies24,25 correlated VEGF levels with preoperative tumor growth rate. One study from a previously cited group26 was sufficiently different in size from their previous study such that the data likely do not involve significant duplication of patients, and as such, was included. This study, compared VEGF levels between recurrent and/or previously irradiated tumors, and previously untreated tumors. One study compared VEGF levels between NF2 and sporadic VS tumors.27
Both studies relating preoperative growth rate and VEGF expression found that increased VEGF expression correlated well with increased growth rates. In addition, recurrent tumors and tumors that had previously been irradiated were found to have increased VEGF levels compared to previously untreated tumors in a subsequent study by 1 of these groups.26
Saito et al27 found no difference in VEGF expression between NF2 VS tumors and sporadic tumors (Table 5).
None of these studies attempted to determine the relationship between VEGF and postoperative outcomes. Therefore, it is unclear if any of these findings are predictive of future behavior of the tumor. It is difficult to assess bias across studies in such a small sample size. One possible problem with these studies is that most tumors studied express VEGF to varying degrees, and it is not clear how reliable semiquantitative methods are at differentiating these expression patterns in stained tumor tissue.
While the existing literature shows potential for VEGF as a potential biomarker, no recommendations regarding the relationship of VEGF and postoperative prognosis can be made. As with much of the previous areas of study, appropriate data are lacking. Presently available data ask the question, “Are tumors that behaved badly also ones that express more VEGF?” The more important question, “Are tumors that express VEGF at higher levels deserving of different treatment?,” has yet to be studied. This limits the applicability of VEGF staining to clinical practice at present. The limited data suggest that tumors with higher VEGF grow faster; however, whether this predicts future behavior is presently unclear. The finding that tumors that fail treatment have higher VEGF levels is an interesting observation that raises the possibility that treatment-failing tumors may be a selected group of high VEGF-expressing tumors. However, it is not possible to state whether this is a truly a prognostic reality without performing the inverse study where patients with high VEGF levels are followed to see if this predicts recurrence.
Taken together, the literature regarding prognostic factors that predict adverse behavior after a VS has been resected is essentially nonexistent. What little data there are focus largely on relationships between preoperative behavior and pathologic features, which while of academic interest, do not lend themselves to making firm recommendations regarding postoperative behavior. Therefore, we largely conclude that no firm recommendations for or against the relationship of any pathologic or molecular feature and future tumor behavior are warranted.
Our search identified a few areas for future study. Little microscopic evidence of elevated cell density and microhemorrhages may have some prognostic value in relation to tumor growth, but many other standard diagnostic characteristics used on frozen section, squash preparations, and hematoxylin–eosin-stained paraffin-embedded tissue preparations did not provide information. On an immunohistochemical level, PCNA LIs may help retrospectively in predicting preoperative tumor growth rate. Some words of caution when using PCNA (or other LIs) are worth mentioning. The data presented are older studies with PCNA, which has been replaced by Ki-67 in many settings. PCNA staining is known to be somewhat finicky and is highly sensitive to fixation methods and antigen retrieval protocols. Therefore, it is unclear how reliable interstudy comparisons are with these stains, and caution should be exercised before using these LIs for making clinical decisions, because the data are weak and the test fraught with methodologic problems.
On a molecular level, VEGF expression may also help in retrospectively predicting preoperative tumor growth rate. Because no clinically important recommendations can be made regarding cell density, tumor microhemorrhages, PCNA LIs, and VEGF, these findings, though interesting, certainly do not mandate these assessments as being critical to patient management. In addition, the findings are in small and mostly retrospective studies, and all warrant validation in properly powered prospective studies.
In the literature reviewed, it was apparent that a wide variety of other molecules and tumor progression mechanisms are worthy of study in VSs (Table 6). For instance, matrix metalloproteinase-9, fibroblast growth factor-receptor, and p27 expression have been studied for links to VS patient prognosis. One study28 analyzed matrix metaloproteinase-9 levels (found among several other molecules) and their relationship to preoperative tumor growth. Another29 studied fibroblast growth factor-receptor levels compared to tumor growth. A final report30 was found that studied a variety of apoptosis and cell cycle genes, and of them, linked only p27 expression changes to growth rate. While these studies are interesting avenues of future research, confirmatory studies in additional cohorts are needed as they are the result of multiple molecule analyses and suffer from the potential for false discovery, not to mention confounding by other prognostic variables.
Based on the literature obtained from these literature searches, one can conclude that there is much yet to be gleaned from the histologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular marker status of VSs in terms of determining functional prognosis, risk of recurrence, and response to surgical or nonsurgical therapy.
The exact utility of KI-67 and PCNA LIs in predicting future recurrence after surgery is essentially unknown and is in need of future study.
VEGF staining is an interesting area of future investigation as its exact utility is unclear at present. As mentioned above, it would be helpful to know whether tumors that behaved badly express more VEGF. Also, are VSs that express VEGF at higher levels deserving of different treatment? With the advent of reliable tumor banking and electronic database availability, one can imagine both questions could be addressed in a retrospective fashion. With these data in hand, a prospective study to validate whatever suspicions arise from those findings could then be planned.
The Vestibular Schwannoma Guidelines Task Force members were required to report all possible COIs prior to beginning work on the guideline, using the COI disclosure form of the AANS/CNS Joint Guidelines Committee, including potential COIs that are unrelated to the topic of the guideline. The CNS Guidelines Committee and Guideline Task Force Chair reviewed the disclosures and either approved or disapproved the nomination. The CNS Guidelines Committee and Guideline Task Force Chair are given latitude to approve nominations of Task Force members with possible conflicts and address this by restricting the writing and reviewing privileges of that person to topics unrelated to the possible COIs. The conflict of interest findings are provided in detail in the companion introduction and methods manuscript (here).
This clinical systematic review and evidence-based guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary physician volunteer task force and serves as an educational tool designed to provide an accurate review of the subject matter covered. These guidelines are disseminated with the understanding that the recommendations by the authors and consultants who have collaborated in their development are not meant to replace the individualized care and treatment advice from a patient's physician(s). If medical advice or assistance is required, the services of a competent physician should be sought. The proposals contained in these guidelines may not be suitable for use in all circumstances. The choice to implement any particular recommendation contained in these guidelines must be made by a managing physician in light of the situation in each particular patient and on the basis of existing resources.
These evidence-based clinical practice guidelines were funded exclusively by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the Tumor Section of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, which received no funding from outside commercial sources to support the development of this document.
The authors acknowledge the Congress of Neurological Surgeons Guidelines Committee for its contributions throughout the development of the guideline and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons Joint Guidelines Committee for its review, comments, and suggestions throughout peer review, as well as Mary Bodach, MLIS, for her assistance with the literature searches. Throughout the review process, the reviewers and authors were blinded from one another. At this time, the guidelines task force would like to acknowledge the following individual peer reviewers for their contributions: Sepideh Amin-Hanjani, MD, D. Ryan Ormond, MD, Andrew P. Carlson, MD, Kimon Bekelis, MD, Stacey Quintero Wolfe, MD, Chad W. Washington, MD, Cheerag Dipakkumar Upadhyaya, MD, and Mateo Ziu, MD.
Figure 1. Article flowchart.
Table 1. Primary search strategies
PUBMED (NLM), searched on April 13, 2015:
Step 1: Neuroma, Acoustic [MeSH]
Step 2: (vestibular[Title/Abstract] OR vestibulocochlear[Title/Abstract] OR acoustic[Title/Abstract]) AND (neuroma*[Title/Abstract] OR neurilemmoma*[Title/Abstract] OR neurilemoma*[Title/Abstract] OR neurinoma*[Title/Abstract] OR tumor*[Title/Abstract] OR tumour*[Title/Abstract] OR schwannoma* [Title/Abstract])
Step 3: Step 1 OR Step 2
Step 4: Ki-67 Antigen[MeSH] OR Tumor markers, biological [MeSH] OR Gene expression regulation, neoplastic [MeSH] OR Genes, p53 [MeSH] OR Vascular endothelial growth factor A [MeSH] OR Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 [MeSH] OR Karyotyping [MeSH] OR Comparative genomic hybridization [MeSH] OR Vimentin [MeSH] OR S100 proteins [MeSH]
Step 5: Ki-67 Antigen [NM] OR Tumor markers, biological [NM] OR Vascular endothelial growth factor A [NM] OR Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 [NM] OR Vimentin [NM] OR S100 proteins [NM] OR MIB-1 antibody [NM]
Step 6: Patholog* [TIAB] OR Neuropatholog* [TIAB] OR Histopatholog* [TIAB] OR Immunohistochemi* [TIAB] OR “frozen section” [TIAB] OR MIB-1 [TIAB] OR MIB 1 [TIAB] OR P53 [TIAB] OR “gene expression” [TIAB] OR PI3K/AKT/mTOR [TIAB] OR VEGF-A [TIAB] OR Karyotyping [TIAB] OR Cytogenetic* [TIAB] OR CGH [TIAB] OR Vimentin [TIAB] OR S100 [TIAB]
Step 7: Step 4 OR Step 5 OR Step 6
Step 9: Step 3 AND Step 7
Step 10: Step 9 AND English [Lang]
Step 11: (animal [MeSH] NOT human [MeSH]) OR cadaver [MeSH] OR cadaver* [Titl] OR comment [PT] OR letter [PT] OR editorial [PT] OR addresses [PT] OR news [PT] OR “newspaper article” [PT] OR case reports [PT]
Step 12: Step 10 NOT Step 11
Step 13: Step 12 AND ("1990/01/01"[PDAT] : "2014/12/31"[PDAT])
Cochrane, searched on April 13, 2015:
Step 1: MeSH descriptor: [Neuroma, Acoustic]: explode all trees
Step 2: ((vestibular or vestibulocochlear or acoustic) and (neuroma* or neurilemmoma* or neurilemoma* or neurinoma* or tumor* or schwannoma*)):ti,ab,kw
Step 4: MeSH descriptor: [Ki-67 Antigen] explode all trees
Step 5: MeSH descriptor: [Tumor markers, biological] explode all trees
Step 6: MeSH descriptor: [Gene expression regulation, neoplastic] explode all trees
Step 7: MeSH descriptor: [Genes, p53]
Step 8: MeSH descriptor: [Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A] explode all trees
Step 9: MeSH descriptor: [Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-1] explode all trees
Step 10: MeSH descriptor: [Karyotyping] explode all trees
Step 11: MeSH descriptor: [Comparative genomic hybridization] explode all trees
Step 12: MeSH descriptor: [Vimentin] explode all trees
Step 13: MeSH descriptor: [S100 proteins]
Step 14: (Patholog* or Neuropatholog* or Histopatholog* or Immunohistochemi* or “frozen section” or MIB-1 or MIB 1 or P53 or “gene expression” or PI3K/AKT/mTOR or VEGF-A or Karyotyping or Cytogenetic* or CGH or Vimentin or S100):ti,ab,kw
Step 15: Step 4 OR Step 5 OR Step 6 OR Step 7 OR Step 8 OR Step 9 OR Step 10 OR Step 11 OR Step 12 OR Step 13 OR Step 14
Step 16: Step 3 AND Step 15
Step 17: Filtered 1990-12/31/2014
Summary of Primary Search
Combined from 2 database searches, total of 841 candidate articles
Table 2. Relationship of histologic findings and prognosis
Sughrue et al, 2011
Retrospective case series of 274 VS cases correlating preoperative hearing loss with histopathologic features
Extensive microhemorrhage and/or fibrosis predicts preoperative hearing loss
Kwiek et al, 2003
Retrospective pathology review of 91 VS cases studying pathologic findings and relating them to preoperative facial paralysis
Antoni B predominant tumors were more likely to present with preoperative facial paralysis than Antoni A or Antoni A/B tumors
Hwang et al, 2002
Retrospective case series of 29 recurrent VSs with histopathologic findings studied in patients with rapid vs delayed recurrence
Cellularity and nuclear pleomorphism were higher in 15 patients showing rapid regrowth of their tumors than 14 patients with slower regrowth. Mitosis and microvascular proliferation did not differ between these groups
Gomez-Brouchet et al, 2001
Retrospective case series of 30 VS cases studying pathologic findings
There was a correlation between amount of hemosiderin deposits and tumor size
Labit-Bouvier et al, 2000
Retrospective case series review of 69 VS cases studying pathologic findings and relating them to preoperative clinical course
Vessel density was correlated with faster a preoperative clinical course, Inflammatory infiltrates were correlated with a slower clinical course.
Kawamoto et al, 1995
Retrospective pathology review of 32 VS cases studying hyalinization, presence of Antoni A/B histology, mitotic figures, and cell density
Cell density correlated with preoperative growth rate. Number of mitoses, extent of hyalinization of vessel, Antoni A/B presence all did not affect preoperative growth rate.
Aguiar et al, 1995
Retrospective pathology review of 105 VS cases studying histologic features of VSs
Tumor cell type (Antoni A vs B) did not influence tumor size or KI-67 mitotic rate
VS, vestibular schwannoma.
Table 3. Relationship of KI-67 labeling index and prognosis
de Vries et al, 2012
Retrospective case series of 67 VS cases with KI-67 staining correlated with preoperative growth rate
KI-67 LI did not correlate with preoperative growth rate
Cafer et al, 2008
Retrospective case series review of 59 VS cases with KI-67 staining
KI-67 LI did not correlate with preoperative tumor size
Diensthuber et al, 2004
Retrospective case series of 22 VS cases with KI-67 staining correlated with preoperative growth rate
Bedanvanija et al, 2003
Retrospective case series review of 34 VS cases with KI-67 staining correlated with preoperative growth rate
Tumors with KI-67 LI >2.5% had higher preoperative growth rate than tumors with lower LIs
Retrospective case series of 29 recurrent VSs with KI-67 LIs studied in patients with rapid vs delayed recurrence
KI-67 LIs were higher in 15 patients showing rapid regrowth of their tumors than 14 patients with slower regrowth
Retrospective case series of 30 VS cases with KI-67 staining
Charabi et al, 1996
Prospective study of 124 VS cases comparing duration of symptoms in low, medium and high proliferative KI-67 cases
High KI-67 proliferative rate (>10 positive cells/HPF) predicted duration of preoperative symptoms, no relation with tumor size
Yokoyama et al, 1996
Retrospective case series of 58 VS cases with KI-67 staining
There was a direct, logarithmic correlation between KI-67 LI, and tumor doubling time in tumors that recurred after surgery
Retrospective case series review of 105 VS cases with KI-67 staining
KI-67 LI did not correlate with preoperative tumor size. LIs are higher in NF2 patients
Antinheimo et al, 1995
Retrospective case series review comparing KI-67 staining in 26 NF2 and 27 sporadic VS cases
KI-67 LI higher in NF2 tumors than sporadic tumors
HPF, high-powered field; LI, labeling index; NF2, neurofibromatosis 2; VS, vestibular schwannoma.
Table 4. Relationship of proliferating cell nuclear antigen labeling index and prognosis
Bedavanija et al, 2003
Retrospective case series of 34 VS cases with KI-67 staining correlated with preoperative growth rate
Tumors with PCNA LI >40% had higher preoperative growth rate than tumors with lower LIs
Retrospective case series comparing PCNA staining in 26 NF2 and 27 sporadic VS cases
PCNA LI higher in NF2 tumors than sporadic tumors
Retrospective case series of 32 VS cases with PCNA staining
There is a direct positive correlation between postoperative growth rate and PCNA LI
LI, labeling index; NF2, neurofibromatosis 2; PCNA, proliferating cell nuclear antigen; VS, vestibular schwannoma.
Table 5. Relationship of vascular endothelial growth factor expression and prognosis
Koutsimpelas et al, 2012
Retrospective case series of VEGF staining in 182 sporadic VS cases
VEGF levels higher in recurrent, and previously irradiated tumors than untreated cases
Koutsimpelas et al, 2007
Retrospective case series of VEGF staining in 17 sporadic VS cases
VEGF staining level and VEGF mRNA levels correlate with tumor volume and growth rate
Saito et al, 2003
Retrospective case series comparing VEGF staining in 10 NF2 and 10 sporadic VS cases
VEGF staining present in most cases and not different between NF2 and sporadic tumors
Caye-Thomasen et al, 2003
Retrospective case series of VEGF staining in 18 sporadic VS cases
Semiquantitative VEGF staining correlated with preoperative tumor growth rate, but not symptom duration or tumor size
mRNA, messenger RNA; NF2, neurofibromatosis 2; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; VS, vestibular schwannoma.
Table 6. Relationship of other molecular markers and prognosis
Moller et al, 2010
Retrospective case series studying MMP-9 staining in 34 VS patients
MMP-9 staining significantly correlated with preoperative tumor growth rate
O'Reilly et al, 2004
Retrospective case series studying FGF-R expression in 30 patients with sporadic VS
FGF-R overexpression was more common in faster-growing tumors, though correlation with growth rate was not significant
Seol et al, 2005
Retrospective case series of molecular markers in patients with rapidly growing recurrent VS
p27 deletion was more common in aggressive recurrences. p53, Bax, bcl-2, Fas, Fas-L, and caspase-3 studies did not differ between the groups
FGF-R, fibroblast growth factor receptor; MMP-9, matrix metalloproteinase-9; VS, vestibular schwannoma.
1. Kastner M, Wilczynski NL, Walker-Dilks C, McKibbon KA, Haynes B. Age-specific search strategies for Medline. J Med Internet Res 2006;8(4):e25.
2. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Walter SD, Werre SR, Hedges T. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005;330(7501):1179.
3. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB, Hedges T. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005;330(7482):68.
4. Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Comparison of top-performing search strategies for detecting clinically sound treatment studies and systematic reviews in MEDLINE and EMBASE. J Med Libr Assoc 2006;94(4):451-455.
5. Zhang L, Ajiferuke I, Sampson M. Optimizing search strategies to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:23.
6. Topfer LA, Parada A, Menon D, Noorani H, Perras C, Serra-Prat M. Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999;15(2):297-303.
7. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound prognostic studies in MEDLINE: an analytic survey. BMC Med 9 2004;2:23.
8. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Hedges T. EMBASE search strategies achieved high sensitivity and specificity for retrieving methodologically sound systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60(1):29-33.
9. Kawamoto Y, Uozumi T, Kiya K, et al. Clinicopathologic growth factors of acoustic neuromas. Surg Neurol 1995;43(6):546-552.
10. Aguiar PH, Tatagiba M, Dankoweit-Timpe E, Matthies C, Samii M, Ostertag H. Proliferative activity of acoustic neurilemomas without neurofibromatosis determined by monoclonal antibody MIB 1. Acta Neurochir 1995;134(1-2):35-39.
11. Kwiek SJ, Bierzynska-Macyszyn G, Luszawski J, et al. Correlation of facial nerve paresis and histopathological type of vestibular schwannoma. Folia Neuropathol 2003;41(4):237-239.
12. Sughrue ME, Yeung AH, Rutkowski MJ, Cheung SW, Parsa AT. Molecular biology of familial and sporadic vestibular schwannomas: implications for novel therapeutics. J Neurosurg 2011;114(2):359-366.
13. Hwang SK, Kim DG, Paek SH, et al. Aggressive vestibular schwannomas with postoperative rapid growth: clinicopathological analysis of 15 cases. Neurosurgery 2002;51(6):1381-1390.
14. Gomez-Brouchet A, Delisle MB, Cognard C, et al. Vestibular schwannomas: correlations between magnetic resonance imaging and histopathologic appearance. Otol Neurotol 2001;22(1):79-86.
15. Labit-Bouvier C, Crebassa B, Bouvier C, Andrac-Meyer L, Magnan J, Charpin C. Clinicopathologic growth factors in vestibular schwannomas: a morphological and immunohistochemical study of 69 tumours. Acta Otolaryngol 2000;120(8):950-954.
16. Cafer S, Bayramoglu I, Uzum N, Yilmaz M, Memis L, Uygur K. Expression and clinical significance of Ki-67, oestrogen and progesterone receptors in acoustic neuroma. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122(2):125-127.
17. Charabi S, Klinken L, Tos M, Thomsen J. Histopathology and growth pattern of cystic acoustic neuromas. Laryngoscope 1994;104(11 pt 1):1348-1352.
18. de Vries M, Hogendoorn PC, Briaire-de Bruyn I, Malessy MJ, van der Mey AG. Intratumoral hemorrhage, vessel density, and the inflammatory reaction contribute to volume increase of sporadic vestibular schwannomas. Virchows Archiv 2012;460(6):629-636.
19. Bedavanija A, Brieger J, Lehr HA, Maurer J, Mann WJ. Association of proliferative activity and size in acoustic neuroma: implications for timing of surgery. J Neurosurg 2003;98(4):807-811.
20. Diensthuber M, Brandis A, Lenarz T, Stover T. Co-expression of transforming growth factor-beta1 and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor in vestibular schwannoma. Otol Neurotol 2004;25(3):359-365.
21. Yokoyama M, Matsuda M, Nakasu S, Nakajima M, Handa J. Clinical significance of Ki-67 staining index in acoustic neurinoma. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 1996;36(10):698-702.
22. Aguiar PH, Tatagiba M, Samii M, Dankoweit-Timpe E, Ostertag H. The comparison between the growth fraction of bilateral vestibular schwannomas in neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) and unilateral vestibular schwannomas using the monoclonal antibody MIB 1. Acta Neurochir 1995;134(1-2):40-45.
23. Antinheimo J, Haapasalo H, Seppala M, Sainio M, Carpen O, Jaaskelainen J. Proliferative potential of sporadic and neurofibromatosis 2-associated schwannomas as studied by MIB-1 (Ki-67) and PCNA labeling. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 1995;54(6):776-782.
24. Koutsimpelas D, Stripf T, Heinrich UR, Mann WJ, Brieger J. Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor in sporadic vestibular schwannomas correlates to growth characteristics. Otol Neurotol 2007;28(8):1094-1099.
25. Caye-Thomasen P, Baandrup L, Jacobsen GK, Thomsen J, Stangerup SE. Immunohistochemical demonstration of vascular endothelial growth factor in vestibular schwannomas correlates to tumor growth rate. Laryngoscope 2003;113(12):2129-2134.
26. Koutsimpelas D, Bjelopavlovic M, Yetis R, et al. The VEGF/VEGF-R axis in sporadic vestibular schwannomas correlates with irradiation and disease recurrence. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2012;74(6):330-338.
27. Saito K, Kato M, Susaki N, Nagatani T, Nagasaka T, Yoshida J. Expression of Ki-67 antigen and vascular endothelial growth factor in sporadic and neurofibromatosis type 2-associated schwannomas. Clin Neuropathol 2003;22(1):30-34.
28. Moller MN, Werther K, Nalla A, et al. Angiogenesis in vestibular schwannomas: expression of extracellular matrix factors MMP-2, MMP-9, and TIMP-1. Laryngoscope 2010;120(4):657-662.
29. O’Reilly BF, Kishore A, Crowther JA, Smith C. Correlation of growth factor receptor expression with clinical growth in vestibular schwannomas. Otolo Neurotol 2004;25(5):791-796.
30. Seol HJ, Jung HW, Park SH, et al. Aggressive vestibular schwannomas showing postoperative rapid growth - their association with decreased p27 expression. J Neurooncol 2005;75(2):203-207.
© Congress of Neurological Surgeons
Source: Neurosurgery, February 2018
5. The Role of Imaging in the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Vestibular Schwannomas
7. The Role of Radiosurgery and Radiation Therapy in the Management of Patients with Vestibular Schwannomas
Find answers to frequently asked questions.