Recognizing and Distinguising the Phenomenon Referred to as Meningioma

Abstract

Background: The reliability of a recent review of meningiomas in the archeologic record was difficult to assess, given the inverted sex ratio of the report and other contents apparently at variance with anatomical/medical findings in scientifically-identified cases. It therefore seemed appropriate to reexamine the nature of meningiomas and derive improve criteria for their recognition in the archeologic record and distinguish them from hemangiomas and bone marrow hyperplasia (recognized in the form of porotic hyperostosis). Methods: Medically-documented cases of meningiomas, hemangiomas and cranial bone marrow hyperplasia were examined to establish a macroscopic standard that distinguishing among them. Alleged cases in the archeologic record were examined for conformity with those criteria. Results: An en face pattern of uniform mesh with contained whorls appears pathognomonic for meningiomas. This contrasts with the non-uniform marrow expansion displacement of trabeculae in porotic hyperostosis and non-uniform vascular displacement of trabeculae in hemangiomas. Reassessment of past attributions revealed few cases of meningiomas that could be confidently diagnosed. Those identified has sex ratios parsimonious with medical literature reports. Conclusions: Criteria suggested for identifying meningiomas permits distinguishing from hemangiomas, bone marrow hyperplasia (porotic hyperostosis) and from the macroscopically-observable surface spicules characteristic of osteosarcomas. Examination for fulfillment of criteria for meningiomas and hemangiomas seems to provide a picture (including sex ratios) more parsimonious with the clinical literature, concluding that Cook and Danforth’s disparate ratios were related to less fastidious case selection. Additionally, confidence in recognizing porotic hyperostosis may be compromised because of apparent similar macroscopic alterations to those seen with hemangiomas.