BACKGROUND: Appropriate management of progressive, unverified brain lesions should be guided by conclusive pathological diagnosis. Stereotactic biopsy (SB) is established as a less invasive surgical procedure that provides diagnosis. In this prospective study, we analyzed the diagnostic difficulties and risk of SB in the various brain mass lesions, the rate of conclusive pathological diagnosis, and the rate of and the reasons for discrepancy between the intraoperative smear results and conclusive paraffin diagnosis. METHODS: Using computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 130 cases underwent SB procedure to assess intra-axial brain mass lesions. A CT-MRI fusion and a multiplanar image processing stereotactic program were used in cases who had lesions adjacent to the neurovascular and critical areas. The intraoperative evaluations were made with the smear preparations (SPs) of 1 or 2 biopsy specimens. The conclusive diagnosis was achieved by paraffin preparations of the remainder of the biopsies. The discrepancy between the smear results and the conclusive diagnosis was analyzed. RESULTS: Conclusive histopathologic diagnosis was achieved in 99.23% of the cases. A discrepancy between smear results and conclusive diagnosis was detected in 6.98% of the conclusively diagnosed cases. The major reasons for the discrepancy were necrosis and improper quality of the preparations. There was no mortality, and hemorrhage-related morbidity was observed in 1 case (0.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Necrosis and the improper quality of the smear preparations (SPs) can cause difficulties in establishing a histopathologic diagnosis in SB. Small tissue samples do not decrease the diagnostic yield with the new stereotactic technologies used by an experienced team consisting of a neurosurgeon, pathologist, and radiologist.
BACKGROUND: Appropriate management of progressive, unverified brain lesions should be guided by conclusive pathological diagnosis. Stereotactic biopsy (SB) is established as a less invasive surgical procedure that provides diagnosis. In this prospective study, we analyzed the diagnostic difficulties and risk of SB in the various brain mass lesions, the rate of conclusive pathological diagnosis, and the rate of and the reasons for discrepancy between the intraoperative smear results and conclusive paraffin diagnosis. METHODS: Using computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 130 cases underwent SB procedure to assess intra-axial brain mass lesions. A CT-MRI fusion and a multiplanar image processing stereotactic program were used in cases who had lesions adjacent to the neurovascular and critical areas. The intraoperative evaluations were made with the smear preparations (SPs) of 1 or 2 biopsy specimens. The conclusive diagnosis was achieved by paraffin preparations of the remainder of the biopsies. The discrepancy between the smear results and the conclusive diagnosis was analyzed. RESULTS: Conclusive histopathologic diagnosis was achieved in 99.23% of the cases. A discrepancy between smear results and conclusive diagnosis was detected in 6.98% of the conclusively diagnosed cases. The major reasons for the discrepancy were necrosis and improper quality of the preparations. There was no mortality, and hemorrhage-related morbidity was observed in 1 case (0.7%). CONCLUSIONS:Necrosis and the improper quality of the smear preparations (SPs) can cause difficulties in establishing a histopathologic diagnosis in SB. Small tissue samples do not decrease the diagnostic yield with the new stereotactic technologies used by an experienced team consisting of a neurosurgeon, pathologist, and radiologist.
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: Stephanie G Kellermann; Christina A Hamisch; Daniel Rueß; Tobias Blau; Roland Goldbrunner; Harald Treuer; Stefan J Grau; Maximilian I Ruge Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Garry Ceccon; Philipp Lohmann; Gabriele Stoffels; Natalie Judov; Christian P Filss; Marion Rapp; Elena Bauer; Christina Hamisch; Maximilian I Ruge; Martin Kocher; Klaus Kuchelmeister; Bernd Sellhaus; Michael Sabel; Gereon R Fink; Nadim J Shah; Karl-Josef Langen; Norbert Galldiks Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Maximilian I Ruge; Philipp Kickingereder; Stefan Grau; Mauritius Hoevels; Harald Treuer; Volker Sturm Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2011-04-11 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
Authors: Milan Grkovski; Zachary A Kohutek; Heiko Schöder; Cameron W Brennan; Viviane S Tabar; Philip H Gutin; Zhigang Zhang; Robert J Young; Bradley J Beattie; Pat B Zanzonico; Jason T Huse; Marc K Rosenblum; Ronald G Blasberg; John L Humm; Kathryn Beal Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-12-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: S H Kim; W S Chang; J P Kim; Y K Minn; J Choi; J W Chang; T S Kim; Y G Park; J H Chang Journal: Clin Neuropathol Date: 2011 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.368