Conclusion
We studied the proposed new method of classifying meningiomas into groups MG1, MG2, MG3 and MG4 using IHC markers, but found difficulties applying the classification system in our material mainly due to lack of exclusivity of markers. Thus, in its present form the classification method lacks clinical applicability.
Methods
In total, 244 patients with meningiomas with tissue in TMAs were included and the IHC markers S100B, SCGN, ACADL and MCM2 were analyzed. Two sets of analyses were performed; the first included all samples with any staining considered positive, the second only samples with >10% immunopositivity. PFS and OS were analyzed in correlation to immunopositivity in the second analysis set.
Results
In the first set of analyses only 26.2% of samples could be to allocate to one group. No further analyses were performed with this selection. In the second set of analyses 52.0% could be allocated to a group. There was an enrichment of WHO grade 2 and 3 tumors in MG3 and MG4 as compared to MG1 (24.1% and 25.7% vs. 12.1%). Both the molecular group (p = 0.032) and WHO grade (p = 0.005) had significant impact on PFS, but only WHO grade predicted OS (p = 0.033).