Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Stereotactic biopsy of brainstem lesions: 21 years experiences of a single center

  • Clinical Study
  • Published:
Journal of Neuro-Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stereotactic biopsies are procedures performed to obtain tumor tissue for diagnostic examinations. Cerebral lesions of unknown entities can safely be accessed and tissue can be examined, resulting in correct diagnosis and according treatment. Stereotactic procedures of lesions in highly eloquent regions such as the brainstem have been performed for more than two decades in our department. In this retrospective study we focus on results, approaches, modalities of anesthesia, and complications. We performed a retrospective analysis of our prospective database, including 26 patients who underwent stereotactic biopsy of the brainstem between April 1994 and June 2015. All of the patients underwent preoperative MRI. Riechert–Mundinger-frame was used before 2000, thereafter the Leksell stereotactic frame was used. After 2000 entry and target points were calculated by using BrainLab stereotactic system. We evaluated histopathological results as well as further treatment; additionally we compared complications of local versus general anesthesia and complications of a frontal versus a trans-cerebellar approach. Median age of all patients was 33 years, and median number of tissue samples taken was 12. In all patients a final histopathological diagnosis could be established. 5 patients underwent the procedure under local anesthesia, 21 patients in general anesthesia. In 19 patients a frontal approach was performed, while in 7 patients a trans-cerebellar approach was used. Complications occurred in five patients. Thereby no significant difference was found with regard to approach (frontal versus trans-cerebellar) or anesthesia (local versus general). Stereotactic biopsies even of lesions in the brainstem are a save way to obtain tumor tissue for final diagnosis, resulting in adequate treatment. Approach can be trans-cerebellar or frontal and procedure can be performed either under local or general anesthesia without significant differences concerning complication rate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abdelaziz O, Eshra M, Belal A, Elshafei M (2016) Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy compared with stereotactic biopsy of intra-axial brain lesions. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 77(4):283–290 (Epub ahead of print)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Albright AL, Packer RJ, Zimmerman R et al (1993) Magnetic resonance scans should replace biopsies for the diagnosis of diffuse brain stem gliomas: a report from the Children’s Cancer Group. Neurosurgery 33:1026–1029

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Blasel S, Jurcoane A, Franz K, Morawe G, Pellikan S, Hattingen E (2010) Elevated peritumoural rCBV values as a mean to differentiate metastases from high-grade gliomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 152(11):1893–1899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cartmill M, Punt J (1999) Diffuse brain stem glioma. A review of stereotactic biopsies. Childs Nerv Syst 15:235–237 (discussion 238)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dellaretti M, Reyns N, Touzet G, Dubois F, Gusmao S, Pereira JL, Blond S (2012) Stereotactic biopsy for brainstem tumors: comparison of transcerebellar with transfrontal approach. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 90:79–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frank F, Fabrizi AP, Frank-Ricci R, Gaist G, Sedan R, Peragut JC (1988) Stereotactic biopsy and treatment of brain stem lesions: combined study of 33 cases (Bologna-Marseille). Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 42:177–181

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Giunta F, Grasso G, Marini G, Zorzi F (1989) Brain stem expanding lesions: stereotactic diagnosis and therapeutical approach. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 46:86–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Goncalves-Ferreira AJ, Herculano-Carvalho M, Pimentel J (2003) Stereotactic biopsies of focal brainstem lesions. Surg Neurol 60:311–320 (discussion 320)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hattingen E, Jurcoane A, Nelles M, Müller A, Nöth U, Mädler B, Mürtz P, Deichmann R, Schild HH (2015) Quantitative MR imaging of brain tissue and brain pathologies. Clin Neuroradiol 25 (Suppl 2):219–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kickingereder P, Willeit P, Simon T, Ruge MI (2013) Diagnostic value and safety of stereotactic biopsy for brainstem tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1480 cases. Neurosurgery 72:873–881 (discussion 882; quiz 882)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Landolfi JC, Thaler HT, DeAngelis LM (1998) Adult brainstem gliomas. Neurology 51(4):1136–1139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lescher S, Whora K, Schwabe D, Kieslich M, Porto L (2016) Analysis of T2 signal intensity helps in the differentiation between high and low-grade brain tumours in paediatric patients. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 20(1):108–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lunsford LD, Niranjan A, Khan AA, Kondziolka D (2008) Establishing a benchmark for complications using frame-based stereotactic surgery. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 86:278–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lu Y, Yeung C, Radmanesh A, Wiemann R, Black PM, Golby AJ (2015) Comparative effectiveness of frame-based, frameless, and intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging-guided brain biopsy techniques. World Neurosurg 83(3):261–268. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2014.07.043 (Epub 2014 Aug 1)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Massager N (2002) Usefulness of PET scan guidance in stereotaxic radioneurosurgery using a gamma knife. Bull Mem Acad R Med Belg 157:355–362 (discussion 363–359)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mathisen JR, Giunta F, Marini G, Backlund EO (1987) Transcerebellar biopsy in the posterior fossa: 12 years experience. Surg Neurol 28:100–104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nöth U, Hattingen E, Bähr O, Tichy J, Deichmann R (2015) Improved visibility of brain tumors in synthetic MP-RAGE anatomies with pure T1 weighting. NMR Biomed 28(7):818–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pell MF, Thomas DG, Krateminos GP (1993) Stereotactic management of intrinsic brain stem lesions. Ann Acad Med Singapore 22:447–451

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Preuss M, Werner P, Barthel H, Nestler U, Christiansen H, Hirsch FW, Fritzsch D, Hoffmann KT, Bernhard MK, Sabri O (2014) Integrated PET/MRI for planning navigated biopsies in pediatric brain tumors. Childs Nerv Syst 30(8):1399–403. doi:10.1007/s00381-014-2412-9 (Epub 2014 Apr 8)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Quick-Weller J, Duetzmann S, Behmanesh B, Seifert V, Weise LM, Marquardt G. (2015) Oblique positioning of the stereotactic frame for biopsies of cerebellar and brainstem lesions. World Neurosurg 86:466-469

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Raabe A, Krishnan R, Zimmermann M, Seifert V (2003) Frame-less and frame-based stereotaxy? How to choose the appropriate procedure. Zentralbl Neurochir 64(1):1–5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rajshekhar V, Moorthy RK (2010) Status of stereotactic biopsy in children with brain stem masses: insights from a series of 106 patients. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 88(6):360–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Samadani U, Stein S, Moonis G, Sonnad SS, Bonura P, Judy KD (2006) Stereotactic biopsy of brain stem masses: Decision analysis and literature review. Surg Neurol 66:484–490 (discussion 491)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schmalfuss IM, Camp M (2008) Skull base: pseudolesion or true lesion? Eur Radiol 18(6):1232–1243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Spiegelmann R, Friedman WA (1991) Rapid determination of thalamic CT-stereotactic coordinates: a method. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 110:77–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tanaka N, Abe T, Kojima K, Nishimura H, Hayabuchi N (2000) Applicability and advantages of flow artifact-insensitive fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery MR sequences for imaging the posterior fossa. Am J Neuroradiol 21(6):1095–1098

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Weise LM, Bruder M, Eibach S, Seifert V, Byhahn C, Marquardt G, Setzer M (2013) Efficacy and safety of local versus general anesthesia in stereotactic biopsies: a matched-pairs cohort study. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 25:148–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Weise LM, Harter PN, Eibach S, Braczynski AK, Dunst M, Rieger J, Bahr O, Hattingen E, Steinbach JP, Plate KH, Seifert V, Mittelbronn M (2014) Confounding factors in diagnostics of MGMT promoter methylation status in glioblastomas in stereotactic biopsies. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 92:129–139

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. White HH (1963) Brain stem tumors occurring in adults. Neurology 13:292–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wagner M, Nafe R, Jurcoane A, Pilatus U, Franz K, Rieger J, Steinbach JP, Hattingen E (2011) Heterogeneity in malignant gliomas: a magnetic resonance analysis of spatial distribution of metabolite changes and regional blood volume. J Neurooncol 103(3):663–672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neurosurgical Clinic, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Schleusenweg 2-16, 60528, Frankfurt, Germany

    Johanna Quick-Weller, Markus Bruder, Nazife Dinc, Bedjan Behmanesh, Volker Seifert, Lutz Weise & Gerhard Marquardt

  2. Institute for Neuroradiology, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    Stephanie Lescher

Authors
  1. Johanna Quick-Weller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephanie Lescher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Bruder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nazife Dinc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bedjan Behmanesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Volker Seifert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lutz Weise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gerhard Marquardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johanna Quick-Weller.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare not to have any conflict of interest concerning this study. This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics committee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quick-Weller, J., Lescher, S., Bruder, M. et al. Stereotactic biopsy of brainstem lesions: 21 years experiences of a single center. J Neurooncol 129, 243–250 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-016-2166-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-016-2166-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation