4.1 Article

Angiocentric glioma: a case series Clinical article

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-PEDIATRICS
Volume 3, Issue 3, Pages 197-202

Publisher

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2008.11.PEDS0858

Keywords

angiocentric glioma; low-grade glioma; pediatric neurosurgery

Funding

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [L40 NS060066-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Object. Angiocentric glioma was recently recognized as a distinct clinicopathological entity in the 2007 World Health Organization Classification of Turnouts of the Central Nervous System. The authors present the first 3 pediatric cases of angiocentric glioma encountered at their institution and review the literature of reported cases to elucidate the characteristics and outcomes of pediatric patients with this novel tumor. Methods. The children in the 3 cases of angiocentric glioma were 10, 10, and 13 years old. Two presented with intractable seizures and I with worsening headache and several months of decreasing visual acuity. Twenty-five cases, including the 3 first described in the present paper, were culled from the literature. Results. In all 3 cases, MR imaging demonstrated a superficial, nonenhancing, T2-hyperintense lesion in the left temporal lobe. Histologically, the tumors were composed of monomorphous cells with a strikingly perivascular orientation that were variably reactive for glial fibrillary acidic protein and epithelial membrane antigen. Surgical treatment resulted in gross-total resection in all 3 cases. By 24, 9, and 6 months after surgery, all 3 patients remained seizure free without focal neurological deficits. Conclusions. Among 25 cases of angiocentric glioma, seizure was the most common symptom at presentation. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated supratentorial, nonenhancing, T1-hypointense, T2-hyperintense lesions. Gross-total resection of this lesion yields excellent results. (DOI: 10.3171/2008.11.PEDS0858)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available