OBJECTIVES: Tissue heterogeneity and rapid tumor progression may decrease the accuracy a prognostic value of stereotactic brain biopsy in the diagnosis of gliomas. Correct tumor grading is therefore dependent on the accuracy of biopsy needle placement. There has been a dramatic increase in the utilization of frameless image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy; however, its accuracy in the diagnosis of glioma remains unstudied. METHODS: The diagnoses of 21 astrocytic brain tumors were derived using image-guided stereotactic biopsy (12 frame-based, nine frameless) and followed by open resection of the lesion 1.5 (0.5-4) months later. The histologic diagnoses yielded by the biopsy were compared with subsequent histologic diagnosis from open tumor resection. RESULTS: Histology of 21 stereotactic biopsies accurately represented the greater lesion at open resection a median of 45 days later in 16 (76%) cases and correctly guided therapy in 19 (91%) cases. Biopsy accuracy of frameless versus frame-based stereotaxis was similar (89 versus 66%, p=0.21). In three (14%) cases, biopsy specimens were adequate to diagnose glioma; however, histology was insufficient for definitive tumor grading. Anaplastic oligodendroglioma (ODG) was under-graded as low-grade ODG in one (5%) case. Biopsy of new onset glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) yielded necrosis/gliosis and was termed non-diagnostic in one patient. Tumors <50 cm(3) were 8-fold less likely to accurately represent the grade of the entire lesion at resection compared with lesions <50 cm(3) (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 0.9-100, p=0.05). DISCUSSION: Both frameless and frame-based MRI-guided stereotactic brain biopsy are safe and accurately represent the larger glioma mass sufficiently to guide subsequent therapy. Large tumor volume had a higher incidence of non-concordance. Increasing the number of specimens taken through the long dimension of large tumors may improve diagnostic accuracy.
OBJECTIVES: Tissue heterogeneity and rapid tumor progression may decrease the accuracy a prognostic value of stereotactic brain biopsy in the diagnosis of gliomas. Correct tumor grading is therefore dependent on the accuracy of biopsy needle placement. There has been a dramatic increase in the utilization of frameless image-guided stereotactic brain biopsy; however, its accuracy in the diagnosis of glioma remains unstudied. METHODS: The diagnoses of 21 astrocytic brain tumors were derived using image-guided stereotactic biopsy (12 frame-based, nine frameless) and followed by open resection of the lesion 1.5 (0.5-4) months later. The histologic diagnoses yielded by the biopsy were compared with subsequent histologic diagnosis from open tumor resection. RESULTS: Histology of 21 stereotactic biopsies accurately represented the greater lesion at open resection a median of 45 days later in 16 (76%) cases and correctly guided therapy in 19 (91%) cases. Biopsy accuracy of frameless versus frame-based stereotaxis was similar (89 versus 66%, p=0.21). In three (14%) cases, biopsy specimens were adequate to diagnose glioma; however, histology was insufficient for definitive tumor grading. Anaplastic oligodendroglioma (ODG) was under-graded as low-grade ODG in one (5%) case. Biopsy of new onset glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) yielded necrosis/gliosis and was termed non-diagnostic in one patient. Tumors <50 cm(3) were 8-fold less likely to accurately represent the grade of the entire lesion at resection compared with lesions <50 cm(3) (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 0.9-100, p=0.05). DISCUSSION: Both frameless and frame-based MRI-guided stereotactic brain biopsy are safe and accurately represent the larger glioma mass sufficiently to guide subsequent therapy. Large tumor volume had a higher incidence of non-concordance. Increasing the number of specimens taken through the long dimension of large tumors may improve diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Georg Widhalm; Georgi Minchev; Adelheid Woehrer; Matthias Preusser; Barbara Kiesel; Julia Furtner; Aygül Mert; Antonio Di Ieva; Boguslaw Tomanek; Daniela Prayer; Christine Marosi; Johannes A Hainfellner; Engelbert Knosp; Stefan Wolfsberger Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2012-03-10 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Betty Y S Kim; Wen Jiang; Jason Beiko; Sujit S Prabhu; Franco DeMonte; Mark R Gilbert; Raymond Sawaya; Kenneth D Aldape; Daniel P Cahill; Ian E McCutcheon Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Ruben Dammers; Joost W Schouten; Iain K Haitsma; Arnaud J P E Vincent; Johan M Kros; Clemens M F Dirven Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Brian T Ragel; Timothy C Ryken; Steven N Kalkanis; Mateo Ziu; Daniel Cahill; Jeffrey J Olson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 4.130