4.6 Article

SUPRATENTORIAL CORTICAL EPENDYMOMA: REPORT OF THREE CASES

Journal

NEUROSURGERY
Volume 57, Issue 1, Pages E192-+

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000164171.29292.D6

Keywords

Cortical; Ectopic; Ependymoma; Supratentorial

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE AND IMPORTANCE: Extraventricular ependymomas account for 50% of supratentorial ependymomas. Some tumors may extend to the gray matter reaching the pial surface, but pure cortical ependymomas are uncommon. Here, we report three patients with supratentorial intracortical ependymoma. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: We reviewed the clinicopathological findings of all patients operated on for ependymomas at the Bellaria Hospital during an 11-year period and found three lesions described as cortical ependymomas. The three lesions represented 2.5% of all ependymal tumors and 21.4% of supratentorial tumors operated on during the study period. The patient were aged 52, 24, and 11 years (mean, 32.3 yr). One was female. All presented with seizures. On imaging, the lesions were confined to the gray matter, were solid, and demonstrated diffuse enhancement. INTERVENTION: Gross total resection was achieved in all instances. Two patients were treated with surgery, and one was treated with surgery and postoperative radiotherapy. All tumors were low grade. After a mean follow-up of 92.6 months, no patient had recurrence or leptomeningeal dissemination. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans confirmed an intracortical location. Routine sections were reviewed, and additional immunoreactions for epithelial membrane antigen, glial fibrillary acidic protein, synaptophysin, neurofilament proteins, S-100 protein, and Ki-67 and electron microscopy were performed. CONCLUSION: Cortical ependymomas seem to behave as benign tumors amenable to surgical removal. Local recurrence and leptomeningeal dissemination seem to be unlikely. Postoperative radiotherapy is unnecessary.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available