Display options
Share it on

Front Vet Sci. 2015 Jul 27;2:20. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2015.00020. eCollection 2015.

Frame-Based Stereotactic Biopsy of Canine Brain Masses: Technique and Clinical Results in 26 Cases.

Frontiers in veterinary science

John Henry Rossmeisl, Rudy T Andriani, Thomas E Cecere, Kevin Lahmers, Tanya LeRoith, Kurt L Zimmerman, Denise Gibo, Waldemar Debinski

Affiliations

  1. Veterinary and Comparative Neuro-Oncology Laboratory, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech , Blacksburg, VA , USA ; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Tech-Wake Forest School of Biomedical Engineering, Virginia Tech , Blacksburg, VA , USA ; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Brain Tumor Center of Excellence, School of Medicine, Wake Forest University , Winston-Salem, NC , USA.
  2. Veterinary and Comparative Neuro-Oncology Laboratory, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech , Blacksburg, VA , USA ; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Tech-Wake Forest School of Biomedical Engineering, Virginia Tech , Blacksburg, VA , USA.
  3. Department of Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech , Blacksburg, VA , USA.
  4. Comprehensive Cancer Center, Brain Tumor Center of Excellence, School of Medicine, Wake Forest University , Winston-Salem, NC , USA.

PMID: 26664949 PMCID: PMC4672202 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2015.00020

Abstract

This report describes the methodology, diagnostic yield, and adverse events (AE) associated with frame-based stereotactic brain biopsies (FBSB) obtained from 26 dogs with solitary forebrain lesions. Medical records were reviewed from dogs that underwent FBSB using two stereotactic headframes designed for use in small animals and compatible with computed tomographic (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Stereotactic plans were generated from MR and CT images using commercial software, and FBSB performed both with (14/26) and without intraoperative image guidance. Records were reviewed for diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of biopsies producing a specific neuropathological diagnosis, AE associated with FBSB, and risk factors for the development of AE. Postprocedural AE were evaluated in 19/26 dogs that did not proceed to a therapeutic intervention immediately following biopsy. Biopsy targets included intra-axial telencephalic masses (24/26), one intra-axial diencephalic mass, and one extra-axial parasellar mass. The median target volume was 1.99 cm(3). No differences in patient, lesion, or outcome variables were observed between the two headframe systems used or between FBSB performed with or without intraoperative CT guidance. The diagnostic yield of FBSB was 94.6%. Needle placement error was a significant risk factor associated with procurement of non-diagnostic biopsy specimens. Gliomas were diagnosed in 24/26 dogs, and meningioma and granulomatous meningoencephalitis in 1 dog each. AE directly related to FBSB were observed in a total of 7/26 (27%) of dogs. Biopsy-associated clinical morbidity, manifesting as seizures and transient neurological deterioration, occurred in 3/19 (16%) of dogs. The case fatality rate was 5.2% (1/19 dogs), with death attributable to intracranial hemorrhage. FBSB using the described apparatus was relatively safe and effective at providing neuropathological diagnoses in dogs with focal forebrain lesions.

Keywords: brain tumor; dog; glioma; neurooncology; neurosurgery

References

  1. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 1999 Sep-Oct;40(5):424-33 - PubMed
  2. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 1999 Sep-Oct;40(5):434-40 - PubMed
  3. Res Vet Sci. 2000 Jun;68(3):243-7 - PubMed
  4. Vet Pathol. 2001 Jan;38(1):47-57 - PubMed
  5. J Small Anim Pract. 2002 Mar;43(3):115-23 - PubMed
  6. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2002 May-Jun;43(3):229-36 - PubMed
  7. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002 Aug;23(7):1160-3 - PubMed
  8. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2005 Jun;147(6):627-31; discussion 631 - PubMed
  9. J Neurosurg. 2005 May;102(5):897-901 - PubMed
  10. Acta Neuropathol. 2007 Aug;114(2):97-109 - PubMed
  11. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Oct;463:3-6 - PubMed
  12. Brain Tumor Pathol. 2006 Oct;23(2):71-5 - PubMed
  13. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2008 Jan;150(1):23-9 - PubMed
  14. J Neurosurg. 2008 May;108(5):989-98 - PubMed
  15. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2008 Sep-Oct;49(5):438-43 - PubMed
  16. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2009 Dec;111(10):835-9 - PubMed
  17. Am J Vet Res. 2011 Jan;72(1):109-21 - PubMed
  18. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2011 Jan-Feb;52(1):33-40 - PubMed
  19. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 1990 Oct;1(4):765-80 - PubMed
  20. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2011 Mar-Apr;52(2):132-41 - PubMed
  21. J Cytol. 2011 Oct;28(4):147-58 - PubMed
  22. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2012 Mar-Apr;53(2):150-6 - PubMed
  23. World Neurosurg. 2013 Jan;79(1):53-4 - PubMed
  24. J Vet Intern Med. 2012 Jul-Aug;26(4):969-76 - PubMed
  25. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2013 Jul-Aug;54(4):332-342 - PubMed
  26. PLoS One. 2013 Oct 16;8(10):e77719 - PubMed
  27. Surg Neurol Int. 2014 Sep 05;5(Suppl 8):S421-6 - PubMed
  28. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2014 Nov;44(6):1013-38 - PubMed
  29. J Med Eng. 2014;2014:139535 - PubMed
  30. Appl Neurophysiol. 1987;50(1-6):81-6 - PubMed
  31. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1995;64(4):183-96 - PubMed
  32. Cancer. 1998 May 1;82(9):1749-55 - PubMed
  33. J Neurosurg. 1998 Jul;89(1):31-5 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support