Isabella Ceravolo1, Giovanni Barchetti2, Francesco Biraschi3, Carmela Gerace4, Enrico Pampana5, Alberto Pingi5, Alessandro Stasolla5. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, San Camillo Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy. ceravolo.isabella@gmail.com. 2. Department of Neuroradiology, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy. 3. Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, Interventional Neuroradiology, Università degli Studi La Sapienza, Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Neurology, San Camillo Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy. 5. Department of Neuroradiology, San Camillo Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report our experience with early stage glioblastoma (e-GB) and to investigate the possible clinical and imaging features that may be helpful to the radiologist to correctly diagnose this entity. METHODS: We performed a retrospective research of patients diagnosed with glioblastoma at two hospitals during a 10-year period. We reviewed all pre-operative MR and included only patients with early stage GB lesions, characterized by hyperintense on T2-weighted signal, with or without contrast-enhancement at post-contrast T1-weighted images, without "classic" imaging appearance of GB (necrosis, haemorrhage, oedema). All preoperative MR were evaluated by an experienced neuroradiologist and information on patients' demographics, clinical presentation, follow-up, and histopathology results study were collected. When available, preoperative CT examination was also evaluated. RESULTS: We found 14 e-GBs in 13 patients (9 males, 4 females, median age 63 years) among 660 patients diagnosed with GB between 2010 and 2020. In 10 lesions, serial imaging revealed the transformation of e-GB in classic glioblastoma in a median time of 3 months. Clinical presentation included stroke-like symptoms, vertigo, seizures and confusion. Preoperative plain CT was performed in 8/13 cases and in 7 e-GBs presented as a hyperdense lesion. Ten out of 14 lesions transformed in classic GB before surgical intervention or biopsy. All lesions revealed typical immunohistochemical pattern of primary glioblastoma. CONCLUSIONS: E-GB is a rare entity that can often lead to misdiagnosis. However, the radiologist should be aware of its imaging appearance to suggest the diagnosis and to request close imaging follow-up, hopefully improving the prognosis of this very aggressive disease.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report our experience with early stage glioblastoma (e-GB) and to investigate the possible clinical and imaging features that may be helpful to the radiologist to correctly diagnose this entity. METHODS: We performed a retrospective research of patients diagnosed with glioblastoma at two hospitals during a 10-year period. We reviewed all pre-operative MR and included only patients with early stage GB lesions, characterized by hyperintense on T2-weighted signal, with or without contrast-enhancement at post-contrast T1-weighted images, without "classic" imaging appearance of GB (necrosis, haemorrhage, oedema). All preoperative MR were evaluated by an experienced neuroradiologist and information on patients' demographics, clinical presentation, follow-up, and histopathology results study were collected. When available, preoperative CT examination was also evaluated. RESULTS: We found 14 e-GBs in 13 patients (9 males, 4 females, median age 63 years) among 660 patients diagnosed with GB between 2010 and 2020. In 10 lesions, serial imaging revealed the transformation of e-GB in classic glioblastoma in a median time of 3 months. Clinical presentation included stroke-like symptoms, vertigo, seizures and confusion. Preoperative plain CT was performed in 8/13 cases and in 7 e-GBs presented as a hyperdense lesion. Ten out of 14 lesions transformed in classic GB before surgical intervention or biopsy. All lesions revealed typical immunohistochemical pattern of primary glioblastoma. CONCLUSIONS:E-GB is a rare entity that can often lead to misdiagnosis. However, the radiologist should be aware of its imaging appearance to suggest the diagnosis and to request close imaging follow-up, hopefully improving the prognosis of this very aggressive disease.
Authors: Paul B Thaler; Jian Yi Li; Yakov Isakov; Karen S Black; Michael Schulder; Alexis Demopoulos Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Sheng-Han Kuo; Chi-Ying Lin; Jie Wang; Peter A Sims; Ming-Kai Pan; Jyun-You Liou; Danielle Lee; William J Tate; Geoffrey C Kelly; Elan D Louis; Phyllis L Faust Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Aaron A Cohen-Gadol; Michael L DiLuna; Sergei I Bannykh; Joseph M Piepmeier; Dennis D Spencer Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2004-07-28 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Leland S Hu; Shuluo Ning; Jennifer M Eschbacher; Leslie C Baxter; Nathan Gaw; Sara Ranjbar; Jonathan Plasencia; Amylou C Dueck; Sen Peng; Kris A Smith; Peter Nakaji; John P Karis; C Chad Quarles; Teresa Wu; Joseph C Loftus; Robert B Jenkins; Hugues Sicotte; Thomas M Kollmeyer; Brian P O'Neill; William Elmquist; Joseph M Hoxworth; David Frakes; Jann Sarkaria; Kristin R Swanson; Nhan L Tran; Jing Li; J Ross Mitchell Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Suvi Larjavaara; Riitta Mäntylä; Tiina Salminen; Hannu Haapasalo; Jani Raitanen; Juha Jääskeläinen; Anssi Auvinen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Igino Simonetti; Federico Bruno; Roberta Fusco; Carmen Cutolo; Sergio Venanzio Setola; Renato Patrone; Carlo Masciocchi; Pierpaolo Palumbo; Francesco Arrigoni; Carmine Picone; Andrea Belli; Roberta Grassi; Francesca Grassi; Antonio Barile; Francesco Izzo; Antonella Petrillo; Vincenza Granata Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-07-16