The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Imaging characteristics of primary intracranial teratoma
Abstract
Background: Primary intracranial teratomas are rare intracranial neoplasms, and are subdivided into mature, immature, and those with malignant transformation. To date, only a few studies of teratoma imaging have been reported. Purpose: To describe and characterize the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in a series of 18 patients (16 men/boys and 2 women/girls; mean age, 14.5 years) with pathologically proven teratomas. Material and Methods: Findings from medical records and imaging examinations in 18 patients with pathologically confirmed intracranial teratomas from 2001 to 2011were retrospectively reviewed at our two institutions. Two radiologists evaluated the lesion location, shape, size, number, edge, homogeneous or heterogeneous appearance, attenuation, signal intensity, and degree of enhancement. Results: All tumors were located within the pineal ( n = 13), parasellar ( n = 2), or suprasellar ( n = 3) regions. The lesions appeared of mixed intensity on MRI, reflecting the histologic heterogeneity, including fibrosis, fatty tissue, calcification, cysts, and keratinocytes. In mature teratomas ( n = 9), seven of nine tumors showed non-enhanced multilocularity or heterogeneous enhancement of the cyst wall on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1W) images. Two of nine tumors showed moderate, heterogeneous enhancement in the solid portion of the lesion; whereas in immature ( n = 7) or malignant transformation ( n = 2) teratomas, heterogeneous, ring-like, intratumoral patchy enhancement was noted on T1W images with contrast. Conclusion: Primary intracranial teratomas are usually localized in the pineal and the suprasellar regions, and often present an ovoid or lobulated mass with or without multilocularity on MRI. Marked enhancement of the solid portion or the thick wall of the tumor was the key feature for distinguishing mature teratoma and malignant teratoma.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“They may contain calcifications with low signal on T1WI and T2WI.”
From Magnetic resonance imaging of sellar and juxtasellar abnormalities in the paediatric population: an imaging review (2015) · cites this paper as [55]
In the citing paper
“accounting for 0.5-1.5 % of all childhood brain tumours, and >50 % of intracranial tumours in infants less than 2 months [54, 55].”
From Magnetic resonance imaging of sellar and juxtasellar abnormalities in the paediatric population: an imaging review (2015) · cites this paper as [55]
In the citing paper
“Additionally, they typically present without perilesional high T2 signal due to intact capsules and an undamaged blood-brain barrier [55].”
From Magnetic resonance imaging of sellar and juxtasellar abnormalities in the paediatric population: an imaging review (2015) · cites this paper as [55]
In the citing paper
“The second most common type of germ cell tumour behind a germinoma.”
From Magnetic resonance imaging of sellar and juxtasellar abnormalities in the paediatric population: an imaging review (2015) · cites this paper as [55]
In the citing paper
“Marked enhancement of the solid portions of the tumour is a key feature in distinguishing a mature versus a malignant teratoma, with malignant tumours demonstrating enhancement.”
From Magnetic resonance imaging of sellar and juxtasellar abnormalities in the paediatric population: an imaging review (2015) · cites this paper as [55]
3 more claims about this paper
Create a free account to see every claim other papers make about this one.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- 10.3171/jns.1991.74.4.0545 · doi:10.3171/jns.1991.74.4.0545
- 10.3171/jns.1996.84.6.0946 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00381-009-0974-8 · doi:10.1007/s00381-009-0974-8
- 10.3171/jns.1985.63.2.0155 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0002-9378(95)90197-3 · doi:10.1016/0002-9378(95)90197-3
- 10.1016/S0387-7604(00)00128-5 · doi:10.1016/s0387-7604(00)00128-5
- 10.1007/s00381-006-0240-2 · doi:10.1007/s00381-006-0240-2
- 10.1159/000103319 · doi:10.1159/000103319
- 10.1159/000315002 · doi:10.1159/000315002
- 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.03.061 · doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2010.03.061
- 10.1007/s003810050137 · doi:10.1007/s003810050137
- Takeuchi J, 1979, Surg Neurol, 12, 400
- Tobias S, 2001, Neurosurgery, 48, 1367
- 10.1016/S0887-8994(98)00139-8 · DOI
- 10.1016/0090-3019(87)90200-X · doi:10.1016/0090-3019(87)90200-x
- 10.1002/1097-0142(19920915)70:6<1577::AID-CNCR2820700622>3.0.CO;2-X · doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19920915)70:6<1577::aid-cncr2820700622>3.0.co;2-x
- 10.3174/ajnr.A2194 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a2194
- 10.1055/s-2008-1071577 · doi:10.1055/s-2008-1071577
- 10.1002/cncr.11495 · doi:10.1002/cncr.11495
- 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.11.2908 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Shields, R., Mangla, R., Almast, J., & Meyers, S. (2015) · Insights into Imaging · doi:10.1007/s13244-015-0401-5 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, Z., Lv, X., Wang, W., An, J., Duan, F., Feng, X., Chen, X., Ouyang, B., Li, S., Singh, S., & Qiu, S.
- Venue
- Acta Radiologica
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-09
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 874-881
- ISSN
- 0284-1851
- 1600-0455
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.