Meningiomas


Guideline Developer(s)

CancerControl Alberta

Date Released

2012 Aug

Full Text Guideline

Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

The type of evidence supporting the recommendations is not specifically stated.

Implementation of the Guideline

Description of Implementation Strategy
  • Present the guideline at the local and provincial tumour team meetings and weekly rounds.
  • Post the guideline on the Alberta Health Services website.
  • Send an electronic notification of the new guideline to all members of Alberta Health Services, Cancer Care.

Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations

Potential Benefits

Appropriate management and treatment of patients with low-grade (World Health Organization [WHO] grade I), atypical (WHO grade II), and anaplastic (WHO grade III) meningiomas

Potential Harms

Morbidity and adverse effects associated with surgery and radiation therapy

Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations

Not applicable

Qualifying Statements

Qualifying Statements

The recommendations contained in this guideline are a consensus of the Alberta Provincial CNS Tumour Team and are a synthesis of currently accepted approaches to management, derived from a review of relevant scientific literature. Clinicians applying these guidelines should, in consultation with the patient, use independent medical judgment in the context of individual clinical circumstances to direct care.

Methodology

Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence

Hand-searches of Published Literature (Primary Sources)
Hand-searches of Published Literature (Secondary Sources)
Searches of Electronic Databases

Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence

Research Questions

Specific research questions to be addressed by the guideline document were formulated by the guideline lead(s) and Knowledge Management (KM) Specialist using the PICO question format (patient or population, intervention, comparisons, outcomes).

Guideline Questions

  1. What is the optimal treatment for adult patients with low-grade (World Health Organization [WHO] grade I) meningiomas?
  2. What are the optimal treatment strategies for adult patients with atypical (WHO grade II) and anaplastic (WHO grade III) meningiomas?

Search Strategy

For the 2012 update of this guideline, medical journal articles were searched using the Medline (2009 to June 18, 2012), EMBASE (2009 to June 18, 2012), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2nd Quarter, 2012), and PubMed electronic databases; the references and bibliographies of articles identified through these searches were scanned for additional sources. The search terms included: Meningioma [MeSH heading], Meningeal Neoplasms [MeSH heading], practice guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and clinical trials. Articles were excluded from the review if they: had a non-English abstract, were not available through the library system, were case studies involving less than 5 patients, or were published prior to the year 2009.

A review of the relevant existing practice guidelines for meningiomas was also conducted by accessing the practice guidelines on the websites of the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA), the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Number of Source Documents

Not stated

Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence

Not stated

Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence

Not applicable

Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence

Systematic Review with Evidence Tables

Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence

Evidence was selected and reviewed by a working group comprised of members from the Alberta Provincial CNS Tumour Team and a Knowledge Management (KM) Specialist from the Guideline Utilization Resource Unit (GURU). A detailed description of the methodology followed during the guideline development process can be found in the Guideline Utilization Resource Unit Handbook (see the "Availability of Companion Documents" field).

Evidence Tables

Evidence tables containing the first author, year of publication, patient group/stage of disease, methodology, and main outcomes of interest are assembled using the studies identified in the literature search. Existing guidelines on the topic are assessed by the KM Specialist using portions of the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument (http://www.agreetrust.org) and those meeting the minimum requirements are included in the evidence document. Due to limited resources, GURU does not regularly employ the use of multiple reviewers to rank the level of evidence; rather, the methodology portion of the evidence table contains the pertinent information required for the reader to judge for himself the quality of the studies.

Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations

Expert Consensus

Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations

Formulating Recommendations

The working group members formulate the guideline recommendations based on the evidence synthesized by the Knowledge Management (KM) Specialist during the planning process, blended with expert clinical interpretation of the evidence. As detailed in the Guideline Utilization Resource Unit Handbook (see the "Availability of Companion Documents" field), the working group members may decide to adopt the recommendations of another institution without any revisions, adapt the recommendations of another institution or institutions to better reflect local practices, or develop their own set of recommendations by adapting some, but not all, recommendations from different guidelines.

The degree to which a recommendation is based on expert opinion of the working group and/or the Provincial Tumour Team members is explicitly stated in the guideline recommendations. Similar to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) methodology for formulating guideline recommendations, the Guideline Utilization Resource Unit (GURU) does not use formal rating schemes for describing the strength of the recommendations, but rather describes, in conventional and explicit language, the type and quality of the research and existing guidelines that were taken into consideration when formulating the recommendations.

Cost Analysis

A formal cost analysis was not performed and published analyses were not reviewed.

Method of Guideline Validation

Internal Peer Review

Description of Method of Guideline Validation

This guideline was reviewed and endorsed by the Alberta Provincial CNS Tumour Team.

When the draft guideline document is completed, revised, and reviewed by the Knowledge Management Specialist and the working group members, it is sent to all members of the Provincial Tumour Team for review and comment. The working group members then make final revisions to the document based on the received feedback, as appropriate. Once the guideline is finalized, it is officially endorsed by the Provincial Tumour Team Lead and the Executive Director of Provincial Tumour Programs.

Identifying Information and Availability

Bibliographic Source(s)

Alberta Provincial CNS Tumour Team. Meningiomas. Edmonton (Alberta): Alberta Health Services, Cancer Care; 2012 Aug. 7 p. (Clinical practice guideline; no. CNS-005).  [31 references]

Adaptation

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

Source(s) of Funding

Alberta Health Services, Cancer Care

Guideline Committee

Alberta Provincial CNS Tumour Team

Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline

Not stated

Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest

Participation of members of the Alberta Provincial CNS Tumour Team in the development of this guideline has been voluntary and the authors have not been remunerated for their contributions. There was no direct industry involvement in the development or dissemination of this guideline. Alberta Health Services, Cancer Care recognizes that although industry support of research, education and other areas is necessary in order to advance patient care, such support may lead to potential conflicts of interest. Some members of the Alberta Provincial CNS Tumour Team are involved in research funded by industry or have other such potential conflicts of interest. However the developers of this guideline are satisfied it was developed in an unbiased manner.

Guideline Status

This is the current release of the guideline.

Guideline Availability

Electronic copies: Available in Portable Document Format (PDF) from the Alberta Health Services Web site.

Availability of Companion Documents

The following is available:

  • Guideline utilization resource unit handbook. Edmonton (Alberta): Alberta Health Services, Cancer Care; 2011 Dec. 5 p. Electronic copies: Available in Portable Document Format (PDF) from the Alberta Health Services Web site.
Patient Resources

None available

NGC Status

This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on December 31, 2012. The information was verified by the guideline developer on February 5, 2013.

Copyright Statement

This NGC summary is based on the original guideline, which is subject to the guideline developer's copyright restrictions.

Scope

Disease/Condition(s)

Low-grade (World Health Organization [WHO] grade I), atypical (WHO grade II), and anaplastic (WHO grade III) meningiomas

Guideline Category

Management
Treatment

Clinical Specialty

Neurological Surgery
Neurology
Oncology
Pathology
Radiation Oncology
Surgery

Intended Users

Physicians

Guideline Objective(s)

To evaluate the optimal treatment strategies for adult patients with low-grade (World Health Organization [WHO] grade I), atypical (WHO grade II), and anaplastic (WHO grade III) meningiomas

Target Population

Adults over the age of 18 years with low-grade (World Health Organization [WHO] grade I), atypical (WHO grade II), and anaplastic (WHO grade III) meningiomas

Note: Different principles may apply to pediatric patients.

Interventions and Practices Considered
  1. Active surveillance
  2. Surgery (complete tumour resection)
  3. Radiotherapy
  4. Surgery plus radiotherapy
  5. Stereotactic radiosurgery
  6. Systemic therapy on a clinical trial basis
Major Outcomes Considered
  • Morbidity rates
  • Progression-free and disease-free survival
  • Recurrence rates

Recommendations

Major Recommendations

World Health Organization (WHO) Grade I Meningioma

  1. Surgery is the primary treatment for patients who are not candidates for management by watch-and-wait. Complete tumour resection is associated with high rates of disease-free survival.
  2. Radiotherapy may be considered in the cases of a tumour location not amenable to surgery (such as a cavernous sinus meningioma), an unresectable tumour, symptomatic residual disease, or a recurrent tumour. Radiological diagnosis may be sufficient in these cases.

WHO Grades II and III Meningiomas

  1. Standard treatment is surgery plus radiotherapy. Radiotherapy is usually delivered at a dose of 54 to 60 Gy, in 1.8 to 2.0 Gy per fraction.
  2. Patients with select tumours may be candidates for stereotactic radiosurgery.
  3. Other systemic therapies may be considered for unresectable or recurrent tumours on a clinical trial basis.
Clinical Algorithm(s)

None provided

Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories

IOM Care Need

Getting Better
Living with Illness

IOM Domain

Effectiveness

Disclaimer

NGC Disclaimer

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.

Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion-criteria.aspx.

NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.

Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.

To get started, log in or create your free account Create Account