4.5 Article

Pitfalls of Neuroendoscopic Biopsy of Intraventricular Germ Cell Tumors

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 106, Issue -, Pages 430-434

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.07.013

Keywords

Endoscopic biopsy; Germ cell tumor; Germinoma; Neuroendoscopy; Teratoma

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [15K103345D]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: A neuroendoscopic biopsy has become common for the diagnosis of ventricular tumors. However, its utility in patients with germ cell tumors (GCTs) has not been well discussed. We examined the usefulness and pitfalls of neuroendoscopic biopsies of intraventricular GCTs at a single institution. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 21 consecutive patients diagnosed with GCTs by a neuroendoscopic biopsy of the ventricular region via the lateral ventricle. We examined the localization of tumors, histologic diagnoses using biopsies, surgical complications, and consistency of the diagnosis at the latest follow-up. RESULTS: Tumor specimens were obtained from a pineal lesion (n = 20), neurohypophysial lesion (n = 5), and lateral ventricular wall lesion (n = 2). In 5 patients, the specimens were obtained from multiple areas. The initial diagnoses were pure germinoma (n = 16), immature teratoma (n = 1), yolk sac tumor (n = 1), and mixed GCT (n = 3). Six of 21 patients needed a second transcranial removal of enhanced residual lesions in the course of the treatment. A discrepancy in the histologic diagnosis between 2 surgeries occurred in 3 patients: All 3 patients had a new diagnosis of teratoma component following transcranial surgery. No postoperative mortality or permanent morbidity related to the neuroendoscopic procedures was noted. CONCLUSION: Neuroendoscopic biopsies are safe and useful for obtaining reliable histologic diagnoses in the management of GCTs. However, for GCTs with mixed histology, biopsies are susceptible to diagnostic errors, especially missing detecting a component of teratoma.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available