The molecular diagnostic yield of frame-based stereotactic biopsies in the age of precision neuro-oncology: a cross-sectional study
-
Published:2023-08-09
Issue:9
Volume:165
Page:2479-2487
-
ISSN:0942-0940
-
Container-title:Acta Neurochirurgica
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Acta Neurochir
Author:
Alhalabi Obada T., Sahm Felix, Unterberg Andreas W., Jakobs MartinORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
With the increasing role of molecular genetics in the diagnostics of intracranial tumors, delivering sufficient representative tissue for such analyses is of paramount importance. This study explored the rate of successful diagnosis after frame-based stereotactic biopsies of intracranial lesions.
Methods
Consecutive patients undergoing frame-based stereotactic biopsies in 2020 and 2021 were included in this retrospective analysis. Cases were classified into three groups: conclusive, diagnosis with missing molecular genetics (MG) data, and inconclusive neuropathological diagnosis.
Results
Of 145 patients, a conclusive diagnosis was possible in n = 137 cases (94.5%). For 3 cases (2.0%), diagnosis was established with missing MG data. In 5 cases (3.5%), an inconclusive (tumor) diagnosis was met. Diagnoses comprised mainly WHO 4 glioblastomas (n = 73, 56%), CNS lymphomas (n = 23, 16%), inflammatory diseases (n = 14, 10%), and metastases (n = 5, 3%). Methylomics were applied in 49% (n = 44) of tumor cases (panel sequencing in n = 28, 30% of tumors). The average number of specimens used for MG diagnostics was 5, while the average number of specimens provided was 15. In a univariate analysis, insufficient DNA was associated with an inconclusive diagnosis or a diagnosis with missing MG data (p < 0.001). Analyses of planned and implemented trajectories of cases with diagnosis with missing MG data or inconclusive diagnosis (n = 8) revealed that regions of interest were reached in almost all cases (n = 7).
Conclusion
Although stereotactic frame-based biopsies deliver a limited amount of tissue, they bear high histopathological and molecular genetic diagnostic yields. Given the proven surgical precision of the planned biopsy trajectories, optimizing surveyed lesion regions could help improve the rate of conclusive diagnoses.
Funder
Dietmar Hopp Stiftung Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Neurology (clinical),Surgery
Reference28 articles.
1. Albert NL, Weller M, Suchorska B, Galldiks N, Soffietti R, Kim MM, la Fougère C, Pope W, Law I, Arbizu J, Chamberlain MC, Vogelbaum M, Ellingson BM, Tonn JC (2016) Response assessment in neuro-oncology working group and european association for neuro-oncology recommendations for the clinical use of PET imaging in gliomas. Neuro Oncol 18:1199–1208. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/now058 2. Capper D, Jones DTW, Sill M, Hovestadt V, Schrimpf D, Sturm D, Koelsche C, Sahm F, Chavez L, Reuss DE, Kratz A, Wefers AK, Huang K, Pajtler KW, Schweizer L, Stichel D, Olar A, Engel NW, Lindenberg K, Harter PN, Braczynski AK, Plate KH, Dohmen H, Garvalov BK, Coras R, Hölsken A, Hewer E, Bewerunge-Hudler M, Schick M, Fischer R, Beschorner R, Schittenhelm J, Staszewski O, Wani K, Varlet P, Pages M, Temming P, Lohmann D, Selt F, Witt H, Milde T, Witt O, Aronica E, Giangaspero F, Rushing E, Scheurlen W, Geisenberger C, Rodriguez FJ, Becker A, Preusser M, Haberler C, Bjerkvig R, Cryan J, Farrell M, Deckert M, Hench J, Frank S, Serrano J, Kannan K, Tsirigos A, Brück W, Hofer S, Brehmer S, Seiz-Rosenhagen M, Hänggi D, Hans V, Rozsnoki S, Hansford JR, Kohlhof P, Kristensen BW, Lechner M, Lopes B, Mawrin C, Ketter R, Kulozik A, Khatib Z, Heppner F, Koch A, Jouvet A, Keohane C, Mühleisen H, Mueller W, Pohl U, Prinz M, Benner A, Zapatka M, Gottardo NG, Driever PH, Kramm CM, Müller HL, Rutkowski S, von Hoff K, Frühwald MC, Gnekow A, Fleischhack G, Tippelt S, Calaminus G, Monoranu CM, Perry A, Jones C, Jacques TS, Radlwimmer B, Gessi M, Pietsch T, Schramm J, Schackert G, Westphal M, Reifenberger G, Wesseling P, Weller M, Collins VP, Blümcke I, Bendszus M, Debus J, Huang A, Jabado N, Northcott PA, Paulus W, Gajjar A, Robinson GW, Taylor MD, Jaunmuktane Z, Ryzhova M, Platten M, Unterberg A, Wick W, Karajannis MA, Mittelbronn M, Acker T, Hartmann C, Aldape K, Schüller U, Buslei R, Lichter P, Kool M, Herold-Mende C, Ellison DW, Hasselblatt M, Snuderl M, Brandner S, Korshunov A, von Deimling A, Pfister SM (2018) DNA methylation-based classification of central nervous system tumours. Nature 555:469–474. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature26000 3. Chang SM, Parney IF, Mcdermott M, Barker FG, Schmidt MH, Huang W, Laws ER, Lillehei KO, Bernstein M, Brem H, Sloan AE, Berger M (2003) Perioperative complications and neurological outcomes of first and second craniotomies among patients enrolled in the Glioma Outcome Project. J Neurosurg 98:1175–1181. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2003.98.6.1175 4. Chen CC, Hsu PW, Erich Wu TW, Lee ST, Chang CN, Wei KC, Chuang CC, Wu CT, Lui TN, Hsu YH, Lin TK, Lee SC, Huang YC (2009) Stereotactic brain biopsy: single center retrospective analysis of complications. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 111:835–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2009.08.013 5. Ghiaseddin A, Hoang Minh LB, Janiszewska M, Shin D, Wick W, Mitchell DA, Wen PY, Grossman SA (2020) Adult precision medicine: learning from the past to enhance the future. Neuro-Oncol Adv 3. https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdaa145
|
|