Yi Lu1, Cecil Yeung2, Alireza Radmanesh2, Robert Wiemann2, Peter M Black2, Alexandra J Golby2. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Electronic address: ylu4@partners.org. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic yield and safety profiles of intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided needle brain biopsy with 2 traditional brain biopsy methods: frame-based and frameless stereotactic brain biopsy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 288 consecutive needle brain biopsies in 277 patients undergoing stereotactic brain biopsy with any of the 3 biopsy methods at Brigham and Women's Hospital from 2000-2008. Variables including age, sex, history of radiation and previous surgery, pathology results, complications, and postoperative length of hospital stay were analyzed. RESULTS: Over the course of 8 years, 288 brain biopsies were performed. Of these, 253 (87.8%) biopsies yielded positive diagnostic tissue. Young age (<40 years old) and history of brain radiation or surgery were significant negative predictors for a positive biopsy diagnostic yield. Excluding patients with prior radiation or surgeries, no significant difference in diagnostic yield was detected among the 3 groups, with frame-based biopsies yielding 96.9%, frameless biopsies yielding 91.8%, and intraoperative MRI-guided needle biopsies yielding 89.9% positive diagnostic yield. Serious adverse events occurred 19 biopsies (6.6%). Intraoperative MRI-guided brain biopsies were associated with less serious adverse events and the shortest postoperative hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Frame-based, frameless stereotactic, and intraoperative MRI-guided brain needle biopsy techniques have comparable diagnostic yield for patients with no prior treatments (either radiation or surgery). Intraoperative MRI-guided brain biopsy is associated with fewer serious adverse events and shorter hospital stay.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic yield and safety profiles of intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided needle brain biopsy with 2 traditional brain biopsy methods: frame-based and frameless stereotactic brain biopsy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 288 consecutive needle brain biopsies in 277 patients undergoing stereotactic brain biopsy with any of the 3 biopsy methods at Brigham and Women's Hospital from 2000-2008. Variables including age, sex, history of radiation and previous surgery, pathology results, complications, and postoperative length of hospital stay were analyzed. RESULTS: Over the course of 8 years, 288 brain biopsies were performed. Of these, 253 (87.8%) biopsies yielded positive diagnostic tissue. Young age (<40 years old) and history of brain radiation or surgery were significant negative predictors for a positive biopsy diagnostic yield. Excluding patients with prior radiation or surgeries, no significant difference in diagnostic yield was detected among the 3 groups, with frame-based biopsies yielding 96.9%, frameless biopsies yielding 91.8%, and intraoperative MRI-guided needle biopsies yielding 89.9% positive diagnostic yield. Serious adverse events occurred 19 biopsies (6.6%). Intraoperative MRI-guided brain biopsies were associated with less serious adverse events and the shortest postoperative hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Frame-based, frameless stereotactic, and intraoperative MRI-guided brain needle biopsy techniques have comparable diagnostic yield for patients with no prior treatments (either radiation or surgery). Intraoperative MRI-guided brain biopsy is associated with fewer serious adverse events and shorter hospital stay.
Authors: Graeme F Woodworth; Matthew J McGirt; Amer Samdani; Ira Garonzik; Alessandro Olivi; Jon D Weingart Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: R Dammers; I K Haitsma; J W Schouten; J M Kros; C J J Avezaat; A J P E Vincent Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2008-01-03 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Evan D Bander; Samuel H Jones; David Pisapia; Rajiv Magge; Howard Fine; Theodore H Schwartz; Rohan Ramakrishna Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Philipp Krauss; Christiaan Hendrik Bas Van Niftrik; Giovanni Muscas; Pierre Scheffler; Markus Florian Oertel; Lennart Henning Stieglitz Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Iris S C Verploegh; Victor Volovici; Iain K Haitsma; Joost W Schouten; Clemens M Dirven; Johan M Kros; Ruben Dammers Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Jan-Oliver Neumann; Benito Campos; Bilal Younes; Martin Jakobs; Christine Jungk; Christopher Beynon; Andreas von Deimling; Andreas Unterberg; Karl Kiening Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 3.240