3.8 Article

Mixed neuronal-glial tumor of the fourth ventricle and successful treatment of postoperative mutism with bromocriptine: case report

期刊

SURGICAL NEUROLOGY
卷 63, 期 4, 页码 375-379

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.surneu.2004.05.039

关键词

glioneuronal tumor; fourth ventricle; bromocriptine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Tumors composed of both neurocytic and astrocytic cells are uncommon and poorly understood. We describe the clinicopathologic features of a very rare rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor of the fourth ventricle and propose bromocriptine as a useful therapeutic agent for cerebellar mutism after posterior fossa surgery. Case Description: A fourth ventricle tumor was incidentally discovered in an 18-year-old woman. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed ventriculomegaly and a solid tumor with low-intensity signals on T1-weighted images and high-intensity signals on T2-weighted images. There was slight gadolinium enhancement. The tumor was subtotally resected. Although its lower half was well circumscribed, its upper half manifested invasive growth. Histologically, 2 components were identified, synaptophysin-positive neurocytic cells forming perivascular pseudorosettes and glial fibrillary acidic protein-positive astrocytic cells with Rosenthal fibers. Overall, cellular atypia was minimal and the MIB-1 labeling index was low. On the basis of these histologic findings, the tumor bore striking similarity to the recently described rosette-forming glioneuronal tumors of the fourth ventricle. Postoperatively, the patient manifested cerebellar mutism. The administration of bromocriptine improved her neurological status dramatically. Conclusion: The natural history of rosette-forming glioneuronal tumors of the fourth ventricle is not yet fully understood. Therefore, careful and long-term follow-up monitoring of the tumor hosts is necessary. Bromocriptine therapy may promote recovery from mutism after posterior fossa surgery. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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