Meningioma Following Radium Therapy

Feiring, Emanuel H.; Foer, Warren H.

doi:10.3171/jns.1968.29.2.0192

Cited by 32 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Probably not dissimilar dose-wise was the sphenoidal ridge meningioma that appeared 24 years after thorium dioxide ventriculography in childhood (Kyle et al, 1963). There is a report of a meningioma occurring 28 years after application of radium to the scalp for a vascular naevus in childhood (Feiring and Foer, 1968).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A second brain tumour and irradiation.

Robinson¹

1978

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Three patients are described in whom irradiation of 2750 rad or more was used in the management of primary brain tumours, and 21 years or more later a second brain tumour of a different type occurred. One of the new tumours was a meningioma and the other two were cerebral astrocytomas. There is evidence to show that moderate doses of ionising radiations given in childhood for tinea capitis are associated with a late risk of developing a meningioma. Higher doses of radiation used for tumours in childhood are followed also by a late hazard of meningioma. There is insufficient evidence to implicate ionising radiations in the aetiology of gliomas. The oncogenic hazards of radiotherapy to the brain do not outweigh its therapeutic value in brain tumour.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A second brain tumour and irradiation.

Robinson¹

1978

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…42,43 Hence, it is our view that this series of 16 patients with PA who previously received irradiation should not go unnoticed, and it stresses the need to elucidate further the possible effects of lowdose ionizing radiation on the pituitary gland.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

A possible association between ionizing radiation and pituitary adenoma

Juven

Sadetzki

2002

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDDespite the recognition of ionizing radiation as a causal risk factor for a variety of solid tumors (including brain tumors), to date, such an association with pituitary adenoma (PA) has not been demonstrated.METHODSTo evaluate a possible association between past exposure to radiation and the occurrence of PA, the authors reviewed about 4900 medical records of patients who had been irradiated in childhood for tinea capitis. An additional search for patients was performed using the Israel Cancer Registry. The average radiation dose to the pituitary gland was estimated as 0.56 grays, and, for all patients, a meticulous validation of the irradiation was performed.RESULTSA group of 16 patients who developed symptomatic PA after childhood exposure to radiotherapy were identified. Overall, the clinical and demographic characteristics of these patients were similar to other series reported in the literature. There was an apparently high rate of second primary tumors (25%), all of them in the irradiated area, diagnosed among this group. The methodologic issues that limit the demonstration of a possible association between radiation and PA and the epidemiologic and experimental findings in the literature are discussed.CONCLUSIONSIn view of the ample amount of evidence identifying low‐dose ionizing radiation as a risk factor for a number of intracranial tumors as well as for tumors arising in endocrine organs, a radiation immunity of the pituitary gland is difficult to accept. Hence, the authors suggest that this series should be considered as preliminary observation that supports the role of ionizing radiation in the development of this tumor. Cancer 2002;95:397–403. © 2002 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.10667

show abstract

“…medulloblastoma (lacono etal.. 1981). craniopharyngioma (Modan etal., 1974) and nevocellular nevus (Feiring and Foer, 1968).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified