OnCo

Sign in to keep your watchlist

Your watched pages live in this browser. Sign in with an email link and OnCo keeps the same list on every device you use. Only your email address and your watchlist are stored.

Meningioma: the decisions you may face

5 treatment settings, 5 with more than one named option. Each section lays out the options the standard of care names, what each is for, the trials behind them with their recorded results, the side effects and cautions on record, and questions to ask. Built from the cancer page's standard-of-care rows; nothing here is advice for your case.

Other settings

Incidental or small asymptomatic

2 options

Observation with serial MRI; many never grow. Treatment when growth or symptoms appear.

The options, in plain words
Active surveillanceStandard of care

For low-risk prostate cancer, monitoring with PSA, MRI, and repeat biopsy instead of treating, because most such cancers never cause harm.

  • Avoids incontinence and erectile dysfunction of treatment in men who would never be harmed
  • Level-1 evidence of safety (ProtecT)
MRIStandard of care

MRI uses a strong magnet and radio waves, with no ionising radiation, to picture soft tissue in finer contrast than CT, so it is the standard scan for brain tumours, prostate, rectal cancer staging, liver lesions and breast screening in high-risk women. It is slow, expensive and blurred by movement.

  • No ionising radiation
  • Best soft-tissue and brain imaging
  • Functional sequences (diffusion, perfusion)
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Anxiety and adherence
  • Repeat biopsies
  • Under-used outside high-income countries
  • Slow and expensive
  • Motion artefacts
  • Gadolinium concerns in renal impairment
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Active surveillance and MRI, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. Does your recommendation follow the current guideline (NCCN Guidelines: Central Nervous System Cancers), and if it departs from it, why?
    Why: Departures from guidelines are sometimes right for an individual; they should be explained.
  5. For my situation (incidental or small asymptomatic), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Observation with serial MRI; many never grow. Treatment when growth or symptoms appear.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Other settings

Symptomatic or growing, accessible

2 options

Surgical resection as complete as safely possible; complete resection of a grade 1 tumour is usually curative and needs no adjuvant treatment.

The options, in plain words
MRIStandard of care

MRI uses a strong magnet and radio waves, with no ionising radiation, to picture soft tissue in finer contrast than CT, so it is the standard scan for brain tumours, prostate, rectal cancer staging, liver lesions and breast screening in high-risk women. It is slow, expensive and blurred by movement.

  • No ionising radiation
  • Best soft-tissue and brain imaging
  • Functional sequences (diffusion, perfusion)

Reading chemical tags on DNA that reveal a cell's identity, used to classify brain tumours and to detect cancer in blood.

  • Cell-of-origin memory
  • Stable analyte in blood
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Slow and expensive
  • Motion artefacts
  • Gadolinium concerns in renal impairment
  • Reference cohort dependence
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between MRI and DNA methylation profiling, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. Does your recommendation follow the current guideline (NCCN Guidelines: Central Nervous System Cancers), and if it departs from it, why?
    Why: Departures from guidelines are sometimes right for an individual; they should be explained.
  5. For my situation (symptomatic or growing, accessible), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Surgical resection as complete as safely possible; complete resection of a grade 1 tumour is usually curative and needs no adjuvant treatment.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Other settings

Small, skull base or surgically inaccessible

4 options

Stereotactic radiosurgery (Gamma Knife, CyberKnife or linac) or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy, with high long-term control rates for grade 1 tumours.

The options, in plain words

A single very high dose, or a few doses, aimed at a small brain or spine target with millimetre precision, replacing whole-brain radiotherapy for most brain metastases.

  • One to five sessions
  • Spares healthy brain
  • Treats targets surgery cannot reach
Gamma KnifeEstablished

The original radiosurgery machine: about two hundred cobalt-60 sources arranged in a shielded helmet whose beams cross at one point inside the brain, so a metastasis or benign tumour a few millimetres across receives a destructive dose in a single visit while the brain around it is spared.

  • Sub-millimetre accuracy and steepest fall-off
  • Many brain metastases in one session
  • Decades of outcome data

A small accelerator on an industrial robot arm that aims hundreds of pencil-thin beams from any direction and follows the tumour as the patient breathes, so brain, spine, prostate, lung and pancreatic tumours can be treated in one to five sessions without a head frame.

  • Frameless with real-time tracking of skull, spine and fiducials
  • Follows breathing motion without gating
  • Non-coplanar beams from almost any angle

IMRT and IGRT shape the radiation beam to the tumour's outline from multiple angles and check the patient's position with a scan before every session, so surrounding organs receive less dose. Fewer, larger doses are now standard in breast and prostate cancer, but a low-dose bath still spreads across normal tissue.

  • Conformal dose, fewer side effects
  • Hypofractionation saves visits
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Limited to small targets
  • Radiation necrosis in a minority
  • Needs precise imaging and immobilisation
  • Intracranial targets only
  • Cobalt sources decay and must be replaced
  • Radioactive inventory, shielding and licensing
  • Long sessions and low throughput
  • Small fields only, not for large volumes
  • Fiducial placement is invasive for soft-tissue targets
  • Low-dose bath to normal tissue
  • Motion management
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Stereotactic radiosurgery (Gamma Knife, CyberKnife, linac SRS), Gamma Knife, CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery and the other options, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. Does your recommendation follow the current guideline (NCCN Guidelines: Central Nervous System Cancers), and if it departs from it, why?
    Why: Departures from guidelines are sometimes right for an individual; they should be explained.
  5. For my situation (small, skull base or surgically inaccessible), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Stereotactic radiosurgery (Gamma Knife, CyberKnife or linac) or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy, with high long-term control rates for grade 1 tumours.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Other settings

Grade 2, incompletely resected, and all grade 3

2 options

Fractionated radiotherapy after surgery (EORTC 22042-26042, RTOG 0539); proton therapy for large or re-irradiated skull base tumours; observation versus radiotherapy after complete resection of grade 2 tumours is under trial (ROAM/EORTC 1308, NRG BN003).

The options, in plain words

IMRT and IGRT shape the radiation beam to the tumour's outline from multiple angles and check the patient's position with a scan before every session, so surrounding organs receive less dose. Fewer, larger doses are now standard in breast and prostate cancer, but a low-dose bath still spreads across normal tissue.

  • Conformal dose, fewer side effects
  • Hypofractionation saves visits
Proton therapyEstablished

Radiation using protons, which stop inside the tumour instead of passing through, so tissue behind it gets no dose.

  • No exit dose; lower integral dose
  • Reduced second cancers in children
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Low-dose bath to normal tissue
  • Motion management
  • Cost
  • Range uncertainty
  • Limited randomised evidence in adults
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between IMRT / IGRT (modern external beam) and Proton therapy, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. Does your recommendation follow the current guideline (NCCN Guidelines: Central Nervous System Cancers), and if it departs from it, why?
    Why: Departures from guidelines are sometimes right for an individual; they should be explained.
  5. For my situation (grade 2, incompletely resected, and all grade 3), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Fractionated radiotherapy after surgery (EORTC 22042-26042, RTOG 0539); proton therapy for large or re-irradiated skull base tumours; observation versus radiotherapy after complete resection of grade 2 tumours is under trial (ROAM/EORTC 1308, NRG BN003).

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Second line

Recurrent, no surgical or radiotherapy option

No approved drug. Bevacizumab, sunitinib or everolimus with a somatostatin analogue on phase 2 evidence; mutation-matched trials (Alliance A071401) and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy studies preferred.

The options, in plain words

Bevacizumab is a humanised antibody that soaks up VEGF-A, the signal tumours use to grow new blood vessels. Approved in 2004, it partners chemotherapy in colorectal, ovarian, cervical, lung, kidney and liver cancer and glioblastoma, and adds to trifluridine/tipiracil in late-line bowel cancer; hypertension, protein in the urine and bleeding are its characteristic side effects.

Sunitinib is an anti-angiogenic pill approved for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours, kidney cancer and GIST.

An mTOR-blocking pill that doubled progression-free time with exemestane in 2012 and is now paired with the oral SERD giredestrant.

A radioactive version of the hormone mimic used for the scan; it homes to neuroendocrine tumour cells and irradiates them from inside.

  • Systemic, receptor-targeted
  • Response and quality-of-life benefit
  • Imaging selects and monitors
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Avoid grapefruit.
  • Known QT prolongation. Avoid other QT-prolonging drugs where possible; check ECG and correct potassium and magnesium before and during treatment.
  • Avoid grapefruit. Live vaccines are contraindicated.
  • 7.5 mg (mild), 5 mg (moderate), 2.5 mg (severe).
  • Myelosuppression, rare MDS/AML (~2-3%)
  • Renal dose
  • Not curative; retreatment data limited
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Bevacizumab, Sunitinib, Everolimus and the other options, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. Does your recommendation follow the current guideline (NCCN Guidelines: Central Nervous System Cancers), and if it departs from it, why?
    Why: Departures from guidelines are sometimes right for an individual; they should be explained.
  5. For my situation (recurrent, no surgical or radiotherapy option), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: No approved drug. Bevacizumab, sunitinib or everolimus with a somatostatin analogue on phase 2 evidence; mutation-matched trials (Alliance A071401) and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy studies preferred.
  6. Am I a candidate for Bevacizumab, Sunitinib, Everolimus, and what side effects should I expect?
    Why: Knowing the expected toxicities helps you plan work, family, and supportive care.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

How to read this page. Options and results come from OnCo records with their sources; the settings are the standard-of-care rows on the cancer page, and the lines of therapy are on the sequencing grid. Where a setting names one path, the choice is usually about timing, trials and where to be treated: see expert centres. OnCo is orientation, not medical advice.