Analysis reveals that progesterone receptor status correlates with improved progression free survival and lower recurrence in meningioma patients, suggesting new therapeutic targets.
Meningiomas, the most common type of primary intracranial lesion, account for roughly 30% of all central nervous system tumors. Recent studies have begun analyzing hormone receptors- such as progesterone, estrogen, and androgen receptors- although the roles and prognostic value of the latter two remain particularly unclear. Identifying and stratifying molecular markers according to sex-based differences in meningioma allows for an improved understanding of meningioma pathogenesis/tumorigenesis and enables the development of novel therapeutic targets. The objective is to assess the prognostic significance of progesterone receptor status in meningioma patients. In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, studies across five databases (Scopus, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and MEDLINE) were screened. 454 original studies conducted over the past 15 years adhered to the inclusion criteria and were further extracted for the expression of progesterone, estrogen, and androgen receptors. 991 total patients (648 females and 343 males) with an average age of 41.7 ± 12.3 yrs (range: 24 - 79 yrs) were included. PR-positive meningiomas were significantly associated with lower-grade meningioma (WHO I) (p<0.001). Higher recurrence and lower tumor control rates were significantly associated with patients with PR-negative status (p=0.02, and p=0.0034, respectively). Patients with PR-positive status had significantly longer PFS (p<0.001) with an average follow-up time of 87.4 months. No significant difference in OS was observed with respect to PR status. These findings support the use of progesterone receptors as a significant prognostic factor and predictive marker to determine tumor characteristics and patient outcomes. Further analysis regarding the sex-based differences in progesterone as well as estrogen and androgen receptor expression should be conducted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dhawan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: