Meningiomas are extremely common adult brain tumors originating from meningeal coverings of the brain and spinal cord. While most are slowly growing Word Health organization (WHO) grade I tumors, ...rare variants (clear cell, chordoid, papillary, and rhabdoid), as well as brain invasive (WHO grade II), atypical (WHO grade II), and anaplastic (WHO grade III) meningiomas are considerably more aggressive. This review summarizes the histopathological and genetic features of meningiomas, including differential diagnosis, pitfalls, and grading challenges. Early stages of meningioma tumorigenesis are closely linked to inactivation of one or more members of the 4.1 superfamily, including the neurofibromatosis type 2 (
NF2
) and
4.1B
(
DAL
-
1
) genes, which interact with the 14-3-3 protein family. Other chromosome 22q genes implicated include
BAM22
,
BCR
(breakpoint cluster region), and
TIMP
-
1
, the last of which is implicated in higher-grade meningiomas. Atypical meningiomas also commonly show chromosomal losses of 1p, 6q, 10, 14q, and 18q, as well as multiple chromosomal gains. While most relevant genes remain unknown, two chromosome 14q candidates (
MEG3
and
NDRG2
) have recently been identified. In addition to alterations of
CDKN2A
,
p14
ARF
, and
CDKN2B
tumor suppressor genes on 9p21, a contribution of the wingless (wnt) pathway with alterations of the E-cadherin and beta-catenin proteins, as well as alterations of the hedgehog signaling pathway have been implicated in anaplastic meningiomas. The integration of histopathological appearance, complex genetic/genomic data, and outcome will likely result in the identification of clinically distinct meningioma subgroups, which in turn can facilitate the development of targeted therapeutic strategies.
This review summarizes the changes in the 5th Edition of the WHO Classification of Endocrine and Neuroendocrine Tumors that relate to the pituitary gland. The new classification clearly distinguishes ...anterior lobe (adenohypophyseal) from posterior lobe (neurohypophyseal) and hypothalamic tumors. Other tumors arising in the sellar region are also discussed. Anterior lobe tumors include (i) well-differentiated adenohypophyseal tumors that are now classified as pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs; formerly known as pituitary adenomas), (ii) pituitary blastoma, and (iii) the two types of craniopharyngioma. The new WHO classification provides detailed histological subtyping of a PitNET based on the tumor cell lineage, cell type, and related characteristics. The routine use of immunohistochemistry for pituitary transcription factors (PIT1, TPIT, SF1, GATA3, and ERα) is endorsed in this classification. The major PIT1, TPIT, and SF1 lineage-defined PitNET types and subtypes feature distinct morphologic, molecular, and clinical differences. The “null cell” tumor, which is a diagnosis of exclusion, is reserved for PitNETs with no evidence of adenohypophyseal lineage differentiation. Unlike the 2017 WHO classification, mammosomatotroph and acidophil stem cell tumors represent distinct PIT1-lineage PitNETs. The diagnostic category of PIT1-positive plurihormonal tumor that was introduced in the 2017 WHO classification is replaced by two clinicopathologically distinct PitNETs: the immature PIT1-lineage tumor (formerly known as silent subtype 3 tumor) and the mature plurihormonal PIT1-lineage tumor. Rare unusual plurihormonal tumors feature multi-lineage differentiation. The importance of recognizing multiple synchronous PitNETs is emphasized to avoid misclassification. The term “metastatic PitNET” is advocated to replace the previous terminology “pituitary carcinoma” in order to avoid confusion with neuroendocrine carcinoma (a poorly differentiated epithelial neuroendocrine neoplasm). Subtypes of PitNETs that are associated with a high risk of adverse biology are emphasized within their cell lineage and cell type as well as based on clinical variables. Posterior lobe tumors, the family of pituicyte tumors, include the traditional pituicytoma, the oncocytic form (spindle cell oncocytoma), the granular cell form (granular cell tumor), and the ependymal type (sellar ependymoma). Although these historical terms are entrenched in the literature, they are nonspecific and confusing, such that oncocytic pituicytoma, granular cell pituicytoma, and ependymal pituicytoma are now proposed as more accurate. Tumors with hypothalamic neuronal differentiation are classified as gangliocytomas or neurocytomas based on large and small cell size, respectively. This classification sets the standard for a high degree of sophistication to allow individualized patient management approaches.
Abstract
The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (CNS), published in 2021, is the sixth version of the international standard for the classification of ...brain and spinal cord tumors. Building on the 2016 updated fourth edition and the work of the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy, the 2021 fifth edition introduces major changes that advance the role of molecular diagnostics in CNS tumor classification. At the same time, it remains wedded to other established approaches to tumor diagnosis such as histology and immunohistochemistry. In doing so, the fifth edition establishes some different approaches to both CNS tumor nomenclature and grading and it emphasizes the importance of integrated diagnoses and layered reports. New tumor types and subtypes are introduced, some based on novel diagnostic technologies such as DNA methylome profiling. The present review summarizes the major general changes in the 2021 fifth edition classification and the specific changes in each taxonomic category. It is hoped that this summary provides an overview to facilitate more in-depth exploration of the entire fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System.
The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System is both a conceptual and practical advance over its 2007 predecessor. For the first time, the WHO ...classification of CNS tumors uses molecular parameters in addition to histology to define many tumor entities, thus formulating a concept for how CNS tumor diagnoses should be structured in the molecular era. As such, the 2016 CNS WHO presents major restructuring of the diffuse gliomas, medulloblastomas and other embryonal tumors, and incorporates new entities that are defined by both histology and molecular features, including glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype and glioblastoma, IDH-mutant; diffuse midline glioma, H3 K27M–mutant; RELA fusion–positive ependymoma; medulloblastoma, WNT-activated and medulloblastoma, SHH-activated; and embryonal tumour with multilayered rosettes, C19MC-altered. The 2016 edition has added newly recognized neoplasms, and has deleted some entities, variants and patterns that no longer have diagnostic and/or biological relevance. Other notable changes include the addition of brain invasion as a criterion for atypical meningioma and the introduction of a soft tissue-type grading system for the now combined entity of solitary fibrous tumor / hemangiopericytoma—a departure from the manner by which other CNS tumors are graded. Overall, it is hoped that the 2016 CNS WHO will facilitate clinical, experimental and epidemiological studies that will lead to improvements in the lives of patients with brain tumors.
Peripheral nerve sheath tumors are common neoplasms, with classic identifiable features, but on occasion, they are diagnostically challenging. Although well-defined subtypes of peripheral nerve ...sheath tumors were described early in the history of surgical pathology, controversies regarding the classification and grading of these tumors persist. Advances in molecular biology have provided new insights into the nature of the various peripheral nerve sheath tumors, and have begun to suggest novel targeted therapeutic approaches. In this review, we discuss current concepts and problematic areas in the pathology of peripheral nerve sheath tumors. Diagnostic criteria and differential diagnosis for the major categories of nerve sheath tumors are proposed, including neurofibroma, schwannoma, and perineurioma. Diagnostically challenging variants, including plexiform, cellular and melanotic schwannomas are highlighted. A subset of these affects the childhood population, and has historically been interpreted as malignant, although current evidence and outcome data suggest they represent benign entities. The growing current literature and the author's experience with difficult to classify borderline or “hybrid tumors” are discussed and illustrated. Some of these classification gray zones occur with frequency in the gastrointestinal tract, an anatomical compartment that must always be entertained when examining these neoplasms. Other growing recent areas of interest include the heterogeneous group of pseudoneoplastic lesions involving peripheral nerve composed of mature adipose tissue and/or skeletal muscle, such as the enigmatic neuromuscular choristoma. Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST) represent a diagnostically controversial group; difficulties in grading and guidelines to separate “atypical neurofibroma” from MPNST are provided. There is an increasing literature of MPNST mimics which neuropathologists must be aware of, including synovial sarcoma and ossifying fibromyxoid tumor. Finally, we discuss entities that are lacking from the section on cranial and paraspinal nerves in the current WHO classification, and that may warrant inclusion in future classifications. In summary, although the diagnosis and classification of most conventional peripheral nerve sheath tumors are relatively straightforward for the experienced observer, yet borderline and difficult-to-classify neoplasms continue to be problematic. In the current review, we attempt to provide some useful guidelines for the surgical neuropathologist to help navigate these persistent, challenging problems.
Furthermore, some morphology-based criteria were too vague for clinical practice, yielding tremendous interobserver variability and poor diagnostic reproducibility, even amongst expert consultants, ...the most egregious example being that of oligoastrocytoma 11. Given the molecular advances in the last decade, it is, perhaps, not surprising that the greatest WHO modifications involved the diffuse gliomas and embryonal neoplasms. Since a comprehensive overview of all new entities, variants, and patterns is beyond the scope of this editorial, the reader is instead referred to a recent review for further details 8. ...grading continues to be based on classic histologic criteria, although early data suggest that these may be inadequate for the IDH-mutant tumors, as no survival time differences were recently found between corresponding WHO grade II and III examples 9. ...the latter is more challenging to achieve than the former, since this classification scheme puts no restrictions on anyone wishing to go beyond the recommended guidelines if they so desire.
OBJECTIVE This is the first clinical outcomes report of NRG Oncology RTOG 0539, detailing the primary endpoint, 3-year progression-free survival (PFS), compared with a predefined historical control ...for intermediate-risk meningioma, and secondarily evaluating overall survival (OS), local failure, and prospectively scored adverse events (AEs). METHODS NRG Oncology RTOG 0539 was a Phase II clinical trial allocating meningioma patients to 1 of 3 prognostic groups and management strategies according to WHO grade, recurrence status, and resection extent. For the intermediate-risk group (Group 2), eligible patients had either newly diagnosed WHO Grade II meningioma that had been treated with gross-total resection (GTR; Simpson Grades I-III) or recurrent WHO Grade I meningioma with any resection extent. Pathology and imaging were centrally reviewed. Patients were treated with radiation therapy (RT), either intensity modulated (IMRT) or 3D conformal (3DCRT), 54 Gy in 30 fractions. The RT target volume was defined as the tumor bed and any nodular enhancement (e.g., in patients with recurrent WHO Grade I tumors) with a minimum 8-mm and maximum 15-mm margin, depending on tumor location and setup reproducibility of the RT method. The primary endpoint was 3-year PFS. Results were compared with historical controls (3-year PFS: 70% following GTR alone and 90% with GTR + RT). AEs were scored using NCI Common Toxicity Criteria. RESULTS Fifty-six patients enrolled in the intermediate-risk group, of whom 3 were ineligible and 1 did not receive RT. Of the 52 patients who received protocol therapy, 4 withdrew without a recurrence before 3 years leaving 48 patients evaluable for the primary endpoint, 3-year PFS, which was actuarially 93.8% (p = 0.0003). Within 3 years, 3 patients experienced events affecting PFS: 1 patient with a WHO Grade II tumor died of the disease, 1 patient with a WHO Grade II tumor had disease progression but remained alive, and 1 patient with recurrent WHO Grade I meningioma died of undetermined cause without tumor progression. The 3-year actuarial local failure rate was 4.1%, and the 3-year OS rate was 96%. After 3 years, progression occurred in 2 additional patients: 1 patient with recurrent WHO Grade I meningioma and 1 patient with WHO Grade II disease; both remain alive. Among 52 evaluable patients who received protocol treatment, 36 (69.2%) had WHO Grade II tumors and underwent GTR, and 16 (30.8%) had recurrent WHO Grade I tumors. There was no significant difference in PFS between these subgroups (p = 0.52, HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09-3.35), validating their consolidation. Of the 52 evaluable patients, 44 (84.6%) received IMRT, and 50 (96.2%) were treated per protocol or with acceptable variation. AEs (definitely, probably, or possibly related to protocol treatment) were limited to Grade 1 or 2, with no reported Grade 3 events. CONCLUSIONS This is the first clinical outcomes report from NRG Oncology RTOG 0539. Patients with intermediate-risk meningioma treated with RT had excellent 3-year PFS, with a low rate of local failure and a low risk of AEs. These results support the use of postoperative RT for newly diagnosed gross-totally resected WHO Grade II or recurrent WHO Grade I meningioma irrespective of resection extent. They also document minimal toxicity and high rates of tumor control with IMRT. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00895622 (clinicaltrials.gov).
Meningiomas account for up to 30% of all primary intracranial tumours. They are histologically classified according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumours of the nervous ...system. Most meningiomas are benign lesions of WHO grade I, whereas some meningioma variants correspond with WHO grades II and III and are associated with a higher risk of recurrence and shorter survival times. Mutations in the
NF2 gene and loss of chromosome 22q are the most common genetic alterations associated with the initiation of meningiomas. With increase in tumour grade, additional progression-associated molecular aberrations can be found; however, most of the relevant genes are yet to be identified. High-throughput techniques of global genome and transcriptome analyses and new meningioma models provide increasing insight into meningioma biology and will help to identify common pathogenic pathways that may be targeted by new therapeutic approaches.
PDF
