4.3 Article

Acute-phase electroencephalography for an infantile atypical teratoid/ rhabdoid tumor

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY
卷 209, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106922

关键词

Brain tumor; Electroencephalography (EEG); Non-convulsive seizures; Atypical teratoid; rhabdoid tumor (AT; RT); Brainstem

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI [JP17K16271, JP19K08281, JP18H04042, JP21K10293]
  2. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development [JP20ek0109411, 20wm0325002h]
  3. [20FC1054]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 14-month-old boy presented with prolonged seizures and unrecovered consciousness due to a midline tumor diagnosed as AT/RT, leading to death 20 days after admission. EEG monitoring revealed rapid transitions in background activity, highlighting the critical condition caused by some brain tumors.
Background: Primary brain tumor is a leading cause of death in cancer-bearing children. Acutely progressive patterns of electroencephalography (EEG) remain to be investigated for children with rapidly growing brain tumors. Case report: A 14-month-old boy was transferred to our department for prolonged seizures and unrecovered consciousness on his fifth day of illness. The EEG recording on admission showed highly disorganized background activity with high-voltage rhythmic delta waves. Serial EEG monitoring revealed a rapid transition of the background activity to the suppression-burst pattern, and then to generalized suppression of cortical activity within a few hours after admission. Magnetic resonance imaging detected a midline tumor at the pineal gland extending to the midbrain and pons. The tumor was pathologically confirmed as atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor (AT/RT) with absent expression of SMARCB1. He died of tumor progression on the 20th day after admission. Conclusion: AT/RT is an additional category of brain tumors that cause the clinically and electro-physiologically critical condition in a few days after the onset.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据