IntroductionMeningiomas are primary central nervous system tumours that arise from both cranial and spinal meninges. Spinal meningiomas occur less frequently than their cranial counterparts and are consequently given less attention in the literature. Therefore, systematic studies are needed to summarise the current knowledge on spinal meningiomas, providing a solid evidence base for treatment strategies. This systematic review of the literature will therefore assess studies describing spinal meningiomas, their epidemiology, diagnostics, treatment and outcomes.Methods and analysisElectronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and Embase, will be searched using the keywords “spinal” and “meningioma”. The search will be set to provide only English studies published after 2000 to avoid any conflicts regarding terminology and classification, as well as to reflect the current status. Case reports, editorials, letters and reviews will also be excluded. Reference lists of relevant records will also be searched. Identified studies will be screened for inclusion, by one reviewer in a first step and then three in the next step to decrease the risk of bias. The results will be categorised to allow for a structured summary of the outcomes and their evidence grade conforming to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Categories may include: epidemiology, histopathology, radiological diagnostics, surgery, complications, non-surgical or adjuvant treatments, disease outcomes and predictors, and lastly recurrence. This review will summarise the current knowledge on spinal meningiomas to allow for a better understanding of the disease and contribute to improve its management. For clinicians, the systematic collection and grading of available evidence may aid in decision making and for those seeking to further the scientific field, this review may help to identify areas where knowledge is currently lacking.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was not required for our systematic review as it is based on existing publications. The results will be disseminated via submission for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Background In a previous article (10.1007/s00701-019-03888-3), preliminary results of a survey, aiming to shed light on the number of surgical procedures performed and assisted during neurosurgery residency in Europe were reported. We here present the final results and extend the analyses. Methods Board-certified neurosurgeons of European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS) member countries were asked to review their residency case logs and participate in a 31-question electronic survey (SurveyMonkey Inc., San Mateo, CA). The responses received between April 25, 2018, and April 25, 2020, were considered. We excluded responses that were incomplete, from non-EANS member countries, or from respondents that have not yet completed their residency. Results Of 430 responses, 168 were considered for analysis after checking in- and exclusion criteria. Survey responders had a mean age of 42.7 ± 8.8 years, and 88.8% were male. Responses mainly came from surgeons employed at university/teaching hospitals (85.1%) in Germany (22.0%), France (12.5%), the United Kingdom (UK; 8.3%), Switzerland (7.7%), and Greece (7.1%). Most responders graduated in the years between 2011 and 2019 (57.7%). Thirty-eight responders (22.6%) graduated before and 130 responders (77.4%) after the European WTD 2003/88/EC came into effect. The mean number of surgical procedures performed independently, supervised or assisted throughout residency was 540 (95% CI 424–657), 482 (95% CI 398–568), and 579 (95% CI 441–717), respectively. Detailed numbers for cranial, spinal, adult, and pediatric subgroups are presented in the article. There was an annual decrease of about 33 cases in total caseload between 1976 and 2019 (coeff. − 33, 95% CI − 62 to − 4, p = 0.025). Variables associated with lesser total caseload during residency were training abroad (1210 vs. 1747, p = 0.083) and female sex by trend (947 vs. 1671, p = 0.111), whereas case numbers were comparable across the EANS countries (p = 0.443). Conclusion The final results of this survey largely confirm the previously reported numbers. They provide an opportunity for current trainees to compare their own case logs with. Again, we confirm a significant decline in surgical exposure during training between 1976 and 2019. In addition, the current analysis reveals that female sex and training abroad may be variables associated with lesser case numbers during residency.

BackgroundThe Swedish Cancer Register (SCR) is characterized by excellent quality and completeness overall, but the quality of the reporting may vary according to tumor site and age, and may change over time. The aim of the current study was to investigate the completeness of the reporting of central nervous system (CNS) tumor cases to the SCR.Materials and methodsIndividuals hospitalized for a CNS tumor between 1990 and 2014 were identified using the Inpatient Register; the proportion of identified cases that did not have any cancer diagnosis reported to the SCR was subsequently assessed.ResultsBetween 1990 and 2014, 58,698 individuals were hospitalized for a CNS tumor, and a large proportion of them did not have any cancer diagnosis reported to the SCR (26%). This discrepancy was particularly pronounced for benign tumors and among elderly patients (over 30%). It was substantially lower for malignant brain tumors among adults (10%); moreover, no increase in the discrepancy between the two registers was observed in this group during the study period. Similar findings were found when assessing the concordance between the Cause of Death Register and the SCR. Among CNS tumor patients who were not reported to the SCR, a large proportion had only one hospital discharge diagnosis containing a CNS tumor (35%) and were less likely to be found in the Outpatient Register, which indicates that a large proportion of patients may have received an erroneous diagnosis.ConclusionWhile a large proportion of CNS tumor patients were not reported to the SCR, the discrepancy between the SCR and the Inpatient Register was relatively small for malignant brain tumors among adults and has remained stable throughout the study period. We do not recommend that data from the Inpatient Register are combined with the SCR to estimate CNS tumor incidence, without proper confirmation of the diagnoses, as a considerable proportion of CNS tumor diagnoses registered in the Inpatient Register is unlikely to reflect true CNS tumors.

No abstract