Citations

Abstract Background Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients remain underrepresented in neuro-oncology research. Despite being the second most common primary brain tumor in this population, meningiomas have not been studied using age-specific molecular analyses. DNA methylation-based classification and prognostic tools have transformed meningioma care. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of these tools across age groups. Methods We analyzed 1,568 meningiomas with DNA methylation and clinical data, including 18 pediatric patients (<15 years), 195 AYA patients (15-39 years), and 1,355 adult patients (>39 years). Pediatric and AYA (P/AYA) tumors were combined and compared with adult tumors. The performance of established molecular classifiers and recurrence predictors, as well as differences in chromosomal copy number alterations were compared across age groups. Results While histologic grading was comparable between cohorts, P/AYA tumors displayed significantly fewer aggressive molecular groups and lower frequencies of chromosomal arm losses, including 1p, 6q, and 14q. The adult-trained recurrence predictor failed in the P/AYA population (AUC 0.57), despite similar score distributions. Retraining the model on an age-specific cohort using an identical analytic framework improved performance (AUC 0.79) and enabled effective stratification of progression-free survival (P = 0.00054). Importantly, 1p loss retained prognostic significance within the P/AYA group, supporting its clinical utility. Conclusions Molecular tools developed in adult-dominant cohorts do not generalize to younger patients due to both biological divergence and exclusion from model development. These findings underscore the need for age-specific molecular frameworks and highlight the imperative of including P/AYA populations in precision neuro-oncology research to ensure lifespan-equitable care.

AbstractBackgroundWith increasing molecular analyses of meningiomas, there is a need to harmonize language used to capture clinical data across centers to ensure that molecular alterations are appropriately linked to clinical variables of interest. Here the International Consortium on Meningiomas presents a set of core and supplemental meningioma-specific common data elements (CDEs) to facilitate comparative and pooled analyses.MethodsThe generation of CDEs followed the 4-phase process similar to other National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) CDE projects: discovery, internal validation, external validation, and distribution.ResultsThe CDEs were organized into patient- and tumor-level modules. In total, 17 core CDEs (10 patient level and 7 tumor level) as well as 14 supplemental CDEs (7 patient level and 7 tumor level) were defined and described. These CDEs are now made publicly available for dissemination and adoption.ConclusionsCDEs provide a framework for discussion in the neuro-oncology community that will facilitate data-sharing for collaborative research projects and aid in developing a common language for comparative and pooled analyses. The meningioma-specific CDEs presented here are intended to be dynamic parameters that evolve with time and The Consortium welcomes international feedback for further refinement and implementation of these CDEs.

Abstract BACKGROUND With increasing studies reporting on the molecular profiling of meningiomas, there is a need to harmonize language used to capture clinical data across centers to ensure that molecular alterations are appropriately linked to clinical variables of interest. Here the International Consortium on Meningiomas presents a final set of core and supplemental meningioma-specific Common Data Elements (CDEs) to facilitate comparative and pooled analyses. METHODS The generation of CDEs followed the four-phase process similar to other National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) CDE projects: development/discovery based on data from published and ongoing meningioma trials, internal validation, external validation including presentation of our data form at the Society for Neuro-Oncology previously, and distribution. RESULTS We developed a set of CDEs organized into patient- and tumor-level modules. In total, the Consortium identified 16 core CDEs (9 patient-level and 7-tumour-level) e.g. age at index surgery, diagnosis of neurofibromatosis, prior chemotherapy or radiation, tumor location, extent of resection, recurrence, etc. An additional 15 supplemental CDEs were defined and described (8 patient-level and 7 tumour-level) e.g. race, cause of death, multiple tumors, tumor size, Simpson grade, second intervention, etc. These CDES are now made publicly available for dissemination and adoption. We also present a narrative review and analysis of recent and ongoing meningioma trials. CONCLUSIONS These CDEs provide a framework for discussion in the neuro-oncology community that will facilitating data sharing for collaborative research projects and aid in developing a common language for comparative and pooled analyses. The CDEs are intended to be dynamic parameters that evolve with time and The Consortium welcomes international feedback for further refinement and implementation of these CDEs.