4.1 Article

Minimal residual calcification and recurrence after gross-total resection of craniopharyngioma in children

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-PEDIATRICS
Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages 276-283

Publisher

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2009.1.PEDS08335

Keywords

calcification; craniopharyngioma; microsurgery; recurrence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Object. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of minimal residual calcification without enhancing tumor on the rate of recurrence after gross-total resection (GTR) of craniopharyngioma in children. Methods. Data were retrospectively collected in 86 patients younger than 21 years of age in whom 103 craniopharyngioma resections were performed by the senior author between 1986 and 2008. Forty-nine patients (27 boys and 22 girls, with a mean age of 8.6 years) fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in this study by having tumor calcification on the preoperative CT scan, undergoing GTR, and having complete postoperative CT and MR imaging and clinical follow-up. Results. Thirteen patients (27%) had residual calcification (<= 2 mm in 12 patients; 3.5 mm in 1 patient) on their postoperative CT scan. At a mean follow-up of 9.4 years (median 10 years), 2 (15%) of 13 patients with and 10 (28%) of 36 patients without residual calcification experienced tumor recurrence. There were no significant differences between these groups in terms of the duration of follow-up, time to recurrence, rate of recurrence, or recurrence-free survival. Conclusions. The absence or presence of minimal residual calcification does not have an impact on the risk of recurrence after GTR in pediatric craniopharyngiomas. The authors recommend withholding irradiation or other adjuvant therapy in the setting of minimal residual calcification without enhancing tumor. Close follow-up with frequent serial imaging in all patients after GTR is imperative to identify and treat early recurrence. (DOI: 10.3171/2009.1.PEDS08335)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available