B V Jones1, L Linscott2, G Koberlein2, T R Hummel3, J L Leach2. 1. From the Department of Radiology (B.V.J., L.L., G.K., J.L.L.) blaise.jones@cchmc.org. 2. From the Department of Radiology (B.V.J., L.L., G.K., J.L.L.). 3. Division of Pediatric Oncology (T.R.H.), Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Developmental venous anomalies are considered variants of venous development that, in and of themselves, are of little clinical import. A possible association between intrinsic brain tumors and developmental venous anomalies has been suggested, but a rigorous investigation has not been performed. The aim of this study was to assess any association between developmental venous anomalies and intrinsic brain neoplasms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A radiology report text search of terms used to describe developmental venous anomalies was performed on a study population of 580 patients with primary intracranial neoplasms and on a control population of 580 patients without neoplasms from the same time period. All positive results were reviewed to confirm that the report was describing a developmental venous anomaly, and the imaging examination was reviewed to confirm the diagnosis. RESULTS: Fifty-nine of the 580 subjects with brain tumors (10.17%) had a developmental venous anomaly identified by report and confirmed on review of the imaging. Thirty-one of the 580 controls (5.34%) had a developmental venous anomaly identified by report and confirmed on review of the imaging (P = .003). No statistically significant difference was noted in the prevalence of developmental venous anomalies among tumor types. No developmental venous anomaly drained the vascular territory of the tumor, and there was no correlation between the location of the developmental venous anomaly and the location of the neoplasm. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of developmental venous anomalies in this pediatric population with intracranial primary neoplasms is significantly greater than in those without neoplasms, suggesting an association that may be related to shared causative factors or susceptibilities to the development of these 2 separate entities.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Developmental venous anomalies are considered variants of venous development that, in and of themselves, are of little clinical import. A possible association between intrinsic brain tumors and developmental venous anomalies has been suggested, but a rigorous investigation has not been performed. The aim of this study was to assess any association between developmental venous anomalies and intrinsic brain neoplasms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A radiology report text search of terms used to describe developmental venous anomalies was performed on a study population of 580 patients with primary intracranial neoplasms and on a control population of 580 patients without neoplasms from the same time period. All positive results were reviewed to confirm that the report was describing a developmental venous anomaly, and the imaging examination was reviewed to confirm the diagnosis. RESULTS: Fifty-nine of the 580 subjects with brain tumors (10.17%) had a developmental venous anomaly identified by report and confirmed on review of the imaging. Thirty-one of the 580 controls (5.34%) had a developmental venous anomaly identified by report and confirmed on review of the imaging (P = .003). No statistically significant difference was noted in the prevalence of developmental venous anomalies among tumor types. No developmental venous anomaly drained the vascular territory of the tumor, and there was no correlation between the location of the developmental venous anomaly and the location of the neoplasm. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of developmental venous anomalies in this pediatric population with intracranial primary neoplasms is significantly greater than in those without neoplasms, suggesting an association that may be related to shared causative factors or susceptibilities to the development of these 2 separate entities.
Authors: Diego San Millán Ruíz; Jacqueline Delavelle; Hasan Yilmaz; Philippe Gailloud; Enrico Piovan; Alberto Bertramello; Francesca Pizzini; Daniel A Rüfenacht Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2007-08-17 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: A Kerpel; M Yalon; M Soudack; J Chiang; A Gajjar; K E Nichols; Z Patay; S Shrot; C Hoffmann Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Julie H Harreld; Mikhail Doubrovin; Elizabeth R Butch; Angela Edwards; Barry Shulkin Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Arnoldo Piccardo; Nathalie L Albert; Lise Borgwardt; Frederic H Fahey; Darren Hargrave; Norbert Galldiks; Nina Jehanno; Lars Kurch; Ian Law; Ruth Lim; Egesta Lopci; Lisbeth Marner; Giovanni Morana; Tina Young Poussaint; Victor J Seghers; Barry L Shulkin; Katherine E Warren; Tatjana Traub-Weidinger; Pietro Zucchetta Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 10.057