Frame-based stereotactic biopsy of deep-seated and midline structures in 511 procedures: feasibility, risk profile, and diagnostic yield
We evaluated the feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of frame-based stereotactic biopsies (SB) in lesions located in deep-seated and midline structures of the brain to analyze these parameters in comparison to other brain areas.
Patients and methods
In a retrospective, tertiary care single-center analysis, we identified all patients who received SB for lesions localized in deep-seated and midline structures (corpus callosum, basal ganglia, pineal region, sella, thalamus, and brainstem) between January 1996 and June 2015. Study participants were between 1 and 82 years. We evaluated the feasibility, procedural complications (mortality, transient and permanent morbidity), and diagnostic yield. We further performed a risk analysis of factors influencing the latter parameters. Chi-square test, Student t test, and Mann-Whitney rank-sum test were used for statistical analysis.
Four hundred eighty-nine patients receiving 511 SB procedures (median age 48.5 years, range 1–82; median Karnofsky Performance Score 80%, range 50–100%, 43.8% female/56.2% male) were identified. Lesions were localized in the corpus callosum (29.5%), basal ganglia (17.0%), pineal region (11.5%), sella (7.8%), thalamus (4.3%), brainstem (28.8%), and others (1.1%). Procedure-related mortality was 0%, and permanent morbidity was 0.4%. Transient morbidity was 9.6%. Histological diagnosis was possible in 99.2% (low-grade gliomas 16.2%, high-grade gliomas 40.3%, other tumors in 27.8%, no neoplastic lesions 14.5%, no definitive histological diagnosis 0.8%). Only the pons location correlated significantly with transient morbidity (p < 0.001).
In experienced centers, frame-based stereotactic biopsy is a safe diagnostic tool with a high diagnostic yield also for deep-seated and midline lesions.
KeywordsStereotactic biopsy Midline structures Deep-seated structures Feasibility Safety Diagnostic yield
CAH, JM, TB, VH, DR, and AH extracted the data. CAH, JM, SG, and MIR analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors read, revised, and approved the final version of the paper.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This retrospective analysis was approved by the local ethical committee (reference numbers 16-476 and 16-477).
Patient consent for publication
- 9.Hamisch C, Kickingereder P, Fischer M et al (2017) Update on the diagnostic value and safety of stereotactic biopsy for pediatric brainstem tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 735 cases. JNS Pediatrics 20(3):261–268Google Scholar
- 20.Nishihara M, Sasayama T, Kudo H et al (2011) Morbidity of stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions. Kobe J Med Sci 56(4):E148–E153Google Scholar
- 28.Soo TM, Bernstein M, Provias J et al (1995) Failed stereotactic biopsy in a series of 518 cases. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 64(4):183–196Google Scholar
- 33.Wick W, Roth P, Hartmann C et al (2016) Long-term analysis of the NOA-04 randomized phase III trial of sequential radiochemotherapy of anaplastic glioma with PCV or temozolomide. Neuro-Oncology 18(11):1529–1537Google Scholar