Miro-Pekka Jussila1,2, Päivi Olsén2,3, Niina Salokorpi4,5, Maria Suo-Palosaari6,7. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, P.O. Box 50, OYS, Oulu, 90029, Finland. 2. Department of Children and Adolescents, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, P.O. Box 23, OYS, Oulu, 90029, Finland. 3. PEDEGO Research Group, Medical Research Center, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, P.O. Box 21, OYS, Oulu, 90029, Finland. 5. Medical Research Center, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. 6. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, P.O. Box 50, OYS, Oulu, 90029, Finland. maria.suo-palosaari@ppshp.fi. 7. Medical Research Center, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. maria.suo-palosaari@ppshp.fi.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pineal cysts are common incidental findings in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Several studies have suggested MRI follow-up if the cyst is larger than 10 mm. However, cysts do not usually change during follow-up. Prevalence, growth, and structure of the pineal cysts were analyzed to decide if follow-up MRI is necessary. METHODS: A retrospective review between 2010 and 2015 was performed using 3851 MRI examinations of children aged 0-16 years to detect pineal cysts having a maximum diameter ≥ 10 mm. Eighty-one children with pineal cysts were identified and 79 of them had been controlled by MRI. Cysts were analyzed for the size, growth, and structure. RESULTS: A total of 1.8% of the children had a pineal cyst with a diameter ≥ 10 mm. Cysts were present in 48 girls (59.3%) and 33 boys (40.7%). Most pineal cysts (70/79) did not significantly grow during the follow-up (median 10 months, range 3-145 months). A total of 11.4% (9/79) of the cysts grew with the biggest change measured from the outer cyst wall sagittal anteroposterior dimension (mean 3.4 mm ± 1.7 mm). Only one cyst grew more than 5 mm. We found no factors correlating with the cyst growth among 9 cysts that grew > 2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of pineal cysts remained unchanged during the MRI follow-up. Results of this study suggest that routine MRI follow-up of pineal cysts is not necessary in the absence of unusual radiological characteristics or related clinical symptoms.
PURPOSE: Pineal cysts are common incidental findings in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Several studies have suggested MRI follow-up if the cyst is larger than 10 mm. However, cysts do not usually change during follow-up. Prevalence, growth, and structure of the pineal cysts were analyzed to decide if follow-up MRI is necessary. METHODS: A retrospective review between 2010 and 2015 was performed using 3851 MRI examinations of children aged 0-16 years to detect pineal cysts having a maximum diameter ≥ 10 mm. Eighty-one children with pineal cysts were identified and 79 of them had been controlled by MRI. Cysts were analyzed for the size, growth, and structure. RESULTS: A total of 1.8% of the children had a pineal cyst with a diameter ≥ 10 mm. Cysts were present in 48 girls (59.3%) and 33 boys (40.7%). Most pineal cysts (70/79) did not significantly grow during the follow-up (median 10 months, range 3-145 months). A total of 11.4% (9/79) of the cysts grew with the biggest change measured from the outer cyst wall sagittal anteroposterior dimension (mean 3.4 mm ± 1.7 mm). Only one cyst grew more than 5 mm. We found no factors correlating with the cyst growth among 9 cysts that grew > 2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of pineal cysts remained unchanged during the MRI follow-up. Results of this study suggest that routine MRI follow-up of pineal cysts is not necessary in the absence of unusual radiological characteristics or related clinical symptoms.
Authors: Wajd N Al-Holou; Hugh J L Garton; Karin M Muraszko; Mohannad Ibrahim; Cormac O Maher Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Edward J Nevins; Kumar Das; Maneesh Bhojak; Rohan S Pinto; Mohammed N Hoque; Michael D Jenkinson; Emmanuel Chavredakis Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Selma Sirin; Marcus C de Jong; Paolo Galluzzi; Philippe Maeder; Hervé J Brisse; Jonas A Castelijns; Pim de Graaf; Sophia L Goericke Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: V Dangouloff-Ros; C-J Roux; G Boulouis; R Levy; N Nicolas; C Lozach; D Grevent; F Brunelle; N Boddaert; O Naggara Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 3.825