Skip to main content
The American Journal of Case Reports logoLink to The American Journal of Case Reports
. 2025 Dec 8;26:e949234. doi: 10.12659/AJCR.949234

Diagnostic Challenges of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis Mimicking Brain Tumor: A Case Report

Xingyang Niu 1,A,B,E,F,*, Shuai Li 2,C,E,F,*, Jiaoxing Li 1,B,C,E, Ran Wang 3,C,D, Wenli Sheng 1,A,E,G,
PMCID: PMC12750913  PMID: 41359563

Abstract

Patient: Male, 64-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Cerebral venous thrombosis

Symptoms: Recurrent headaches and left lower limb pain

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Neurology

Objective: Unusual clinical course

Background

Cerebral venous thrombosis is a rare but critical stroke subtype that frequently mimics brain tumors on imaging, resulting in diagnostic delays and unnecessary interventions. This case highlights a classic example of cerebral venous thrombosis mimicking a glioma, showing the diagnostic pitfalls and need for heightened clinical suspicion.

Case Report

A 64-year-old man presented with a 1-month history of recurrent headaches and left lower-limb pain. Initial evaluation revealed markedly elevated D-dimer (7.12 mg/L; normal <0.55) and imaging findings highly suggestive of high-grade glioma: a right frontal heterogeneously enhancing mass with perilesional edema. Notably, contrast-enhanced MRV demonstrated no evidence of venous sinus thrombosis, further supporting the working diagnosis of glioma. Despite thrombotic risk indicators, the patient underwent craniotomy due to progressive neurological symptoms. Histopathology unexpectedly demonstrated thrombotic infarction without tumor cells. Nine months later, recurrent neurological deterioration prompted re-evaluation, with digital subtraction angiography confirming extensive cerebral venous thrombosis involving superior sagittal and transverse sinuses. Therapeutic anticoagulation achieved partial symptom resolution, but residual motor deficits persisted.

Conclusions

Cerebral venous thrombosis mimicking brain tumors remains a significant diagnostic challenge. This case emphasizes the importance of integrating clinical, laboratory, and imaging data to avoid misdiagnosis and unnecessary surgery. In patients with atypical imaging features and thrombotic risk factors, preoperative vascular imaging such as digital subtraction angiography or magnetic resonance black-blood thrombus imaging should be strongly considered to avoid misdiagnosis and its potentially devastating consequences.

Keywords: Case Reports; Diagnosis, Differential; Glioma; Neuroimaging; Thrombosis

Introduction

Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), a rare cerebrovascular disorder accounting for 0.5% to 3% of stroke cases, poses significant morbidity risks, especially in individuals under 50 years old [1,2]. Its clinical manifestations are often non-specific, including headache, seizure, nausea, and focal deficits, which contribute to diagnostic delays and increased morbidity [3,4]. However, CVT can also occur across all age groups and can present even in the absence of classic risk factors, as demonstrated in our case.

A critical diagnostic challenge arises from imaging mimicry between CVT and brain tumors. On magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CVT can present as space-occupying lesions with ring-like enhancement and perilesional edema, closely resembling a brain tumor. Misdiagnoses of CVT as a brain tumor have been reported in the literature since 1998 [5], and the term “cerebral venous thrombosis mimicking brain tumor” (CVTMBT) was formally introduced in 2004 [6], yet this entity remains frequently overlooked [7]. This lack of awareness directly contributed to our patient’s initial misdiagnosis and unnecessary craniotomy.

In this report, we present a case of CVT that was initially misdiagnosed as glioma despite comprehensive imaging evaluations, resulting in an unnecessary craniotomy. Through this case and literature review, we identify key features distinguishing CVTMBT from tumors and propose strategies to mitigate diagnostic errors.

Case Report

A 64-year-old man presented with a 1-month history of recurrent headaches and 8 days of pain in the left lower limb. He denied a family history of venous thrombosis, malignancy, recent infection, or trauma. He was a retired office worker with no smoking or alcohol use. Initial laboratory evaluation revealed markedly elevated D-dimer (7.12 mg/L FEU; reference range: 0–0.55 mg/L FEU) with prolonged thrombin time (22 seconds) and prothrombin time (14.9 seconds). Other hematological, biochemical, and coagulation parameters were within normal limits.

Neuroimaging studies revealed findings concerning for glioma. Cranial computed tomography (CT) demonstrated mixed hypodense and hyperdense lesions in the right frontal lobe with poorly defined margins (Figure 1G). MRI (3.0T) showed irregular nodular abnormalities in the same region, characterized by mixed hypointensity and hyperintensity on T1-weighted imaging (T1WI), and hyperintensity on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequences. Contrast-enhanced MRI revealed heterogeneous ring-like enhancement with surrounding non-enhancing edema (Figure 1A–1E). Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance venography (CE-MRV, 3.0T with gadolinium) showed no significant abnormalities (Figure 1F). Functional imaging further supported the diagnosis of glioma. Positron emission tomography (PET)-CT identified mild FDG uptake and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) revealed reduced N-acetylaspartate (NAA) with elevated choline levels (Figure 1H–1I).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Preoperative neuroimaging findings. (A–C) T1WI shows mixed high and low signals, while T2WI and T2-FLAIR exhibit high signal intensity. (D, E), Contrast-enhanced scans reveal a ring-shaped, uneven enhancement of the lesion, with no significant enhancement in the surrounding edema. (F) MRV shows no obvious abnormalities. (G) CT shows mixed hypodense and hyperdense lesions. (H) PET-CT reveals mildly increased FDG uptake with an SUVmax of approximately 4.0 (red arrow). (I) MRS indicates a significant reduction in NAA at the lesion site, suggesting neuronal loss, with a mild increase in choline.

Despite the elevated D-dimer level and the presence of peripheral deep vein thrombosis on Doppler ultrasound (posterior tibial and peroneal veins), CVT was not initially suspected. Thrombophilia screening and autoimmune testing were deferred due to the strong radiological impression of glioma. Based on the imaging profile and clinical progression, the case was managed as suspected glioma and he underwent a right frontal-temporal craniotomy for tumor resection 17 days after admission. Intraoperative frozen sections revealed patchy necrosis and scattered tumor-like cells (Figure 2A). Despite the inconclusive intraoperative pathology, no alternative diagnosis such as CVT was considered. The surgical team proceeded under the assumption of glioma, and no antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy was initiated.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Diagnostic histopathological and neuroimaging findings. (A, B) Pathological examination of the resected lesion shows no tumor in the lesion or meningeal tissues. The lesions are consistent with infarct-like changes. (A) Mixed thrombus is observed in the vein. (B) Loss of nerve fibers is noted. (C, D) CT scans on readmission showed hyperdensity in the superior sagittal sinus (red arrow), suggestive of venous sinus thrombosis; (E) DSA revealed multiple filling defects in the superior sagittal sinus and right transverse sinus (green arrow); (F) Postoperative venography following venous recanalization showed restored venous flow.

The patient was treated conservatively in the postoperative period. He remained neurologically stable, with no new deficits or perioperative complications. He was discharged on postoperative day 5 with routine follow-up. However, the final histopathological examination revealed thrombotic infarction, characterized by infarct-like changes with vascular thrombosis and loss of nerve fibers (Figure 2B). Intraoperative frozen sections showed scattered atypical cells with hyperchromatic nuclei, initially mimicking glioma. Ancillary studies on permanent sections demonstrated reactive gliosis (GFAP+), CD68+ histiocytic infiltration, and a very low Ki-67 index (<1%), with no neoplastic cells, thereby excluding glioma. At that time, as his symptoms remained stable and he had already been discharged, no immediate treatment modification or vascular evaluation was arranged.

Nine months after the initial surgery, the patient experienced sudden onset of dizziness, nausea, and vomiting, and right-sided limb weakness. Neurological examination revealed somnolence, increased muscle tone, and absent withdrawal reflexes, primarily in the lower limbs. This marked clinical deterioration prompted urgent re-evaluation. Repeat evaluation showed elevated D-dimer levels (5.75 mg/L FEU). Further laboratory testing, including thrombophilia, autoimmune, and malignancy screening, revealed no abnormalities. Cranial CT showed hyperdense lesions in the bilateral frontoparietal regions and superior sagittal sinus (Figure 2C, 2D). This hyperdensity in the superior sagittal sinus had not been evident on the initial CT, which may explain why CVT was not suspected at that time. Given the combination of neurological worsening, persistently elevated D-dimer levels, suggestive imaging findings, and the previous histopathological diagnosis of thrombotic infarction, CVT was finally suspected.

Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) confirmed multiple filling defects in the superior sagittal sinus and right transverse sinus (Figure 2E). The patient underwent mechanical thrombectomy for venous recanalization, followed by anticoagulation therapy. Anticoagulation with warfarin (target INR 2–3) was initiated for 6 months. At 1-month follow-up, the patient adhered fully to anticoagulation therapy, without complications. He expressed relief after correct treatment and regained consciousness with mild residual motor deficits in the lower limbs, suggestive of partial irreversible damage due to delayed diagnosis and treatment (Figure 2F).

Discussion

The patient’s initial MRI findings (heterogeneous ring-enhancement with perilesional edema) alongside PET-CT hypermetabolism and MRS findings of reduced NAA and elevated choline, were all suggestive of glioma, culminating in a misdiagnosis. Similar misdiagnoses occurred in 13 CVTMBT cases [512], highlighting 3 major challenges.

First, the imaging mimicry between CVT and brain tumor remains a persistent diagnostic pitfall. As demonstrated in our patient and previously reported cases [512], CVTMBT frequently presents as space-occupying lesions with ring-enhancement and perilesional edema on MRI. Moreover, PET-CT and MRS can further confound diagnosis by demonstrating increased metabolic activity and abnormal metabolite ratios [13,14]. These overlapping features contributed to our patient’s unnecessary craniotomy, consistent with 13 previously reported cases in which 8 patients (62%) underwent unindicated surgeries (Table 1).

Table 1.

Summary of previously reported cerebral venous thrombosis mimicking brain tumor cases.

Author, year Age/sex Clinical manifestations D-dimer Imaging presentation Primary diagnosis Evidence of definitive diagnosis
Bakshi et al, 1998 26Y/F Headaches, nausea, and vomiting Not mentioned
  • T1: hypointense

  • T2: mixed hypointense and hyperintense

Brain tumor DSA
Bakshi et al, 1998 39Y/F Headache, aphasia, right-sided weakness, and seizure Not mentioned
  • T1: hypointense

  • T2: hyperintense

  • T1+C: enhanced

Brain tumor Protein C deficiency*
Bakshi et al, 1998 32Y/F Headache and seizure Not mentioned
  • T1: hypointense

  • T2: hyperintense

  • T1+C: enhanced

Brain tumor Frozen section and histopathology
Gradinscak et al, 2004 18Y/M Right hemiparesis Not mentioned
  • T2: hyperintense

  • T2Flair: hyperintense

  • T1+C: no enhancement

  • PET: glucose hypometabolism

Infiltrative tumor Frozen section and histopathology
Xu et al, 2019 53Y/M Headache High
  • T1: hyperintense

  • T2: slightly hyperintense

Angiogenic tumor Frozen section and histopathology
Gündoğan et al, 2019 68Y/F Headache Not mentioned
  • CT: hypodensity

  • PET: intense FDG uptake

Primary brain tumor or metastasis MRV
Masuoka et al, 2009 77Y/F Vertigo, nausea, and gait disturbance Normal
  • T2: hyperintense

  • T2Flair: hyperintense

  • T1+C: enhanced

Malignant glioma DSA
Wen et al, 2021 62Y/M Recurrent vertigo, vomiting, ataxia and mild dysarthria Normal
  • CT: hypodensity mixed with hyperdensity

  • T1: hypointense

  • T2: hyperintense

  • T2FLAIR: hyperintense

  • T1+C: enhanced

Brain tumor Brain biopsy
Haug et al, 2009 20Y/F Left-sided hemiparesis High
  • T1: hypointense

  • T2: mixed hypointense and hyperintense

Brain tumor Brain biopsy
Yu et al, 2016 36Y/M Numbness and weakness of the right limbs Normal
  • CT: hypodensity mixed with hyperdensity

  • T1: hypointense mixed with hyperintense

  • T2: hyperintense

  • T1+C: enhanced

Glioma Brain biopsy
Yu et al, 2016 19Y/F Headache and seizure Normal
  • CT: hypodensity mixed with hyperdensity

  • T1: hypointense mixed with hyperintense

  • T2: hyperintense

  • T1+C: enhanced

Glioma Brain biopsy
Yu et al, 2016 32Y/M Numbness and weakness in the left limbs Normal
  • CT: hypodensity mixed with hyperdensity

  • T1: mixed hypointense and hyperintense

  • T2: hyperintense

  • T1+C: enhanced

Glioma Brain biopsy
Yu et al, 2016 23Y/F Headache and seizure High
  • CT: hypodensity mixed with hyperdensity

  • T1: hypointense mixed with hyperintense

  • T2: hyperintense

  • T1+C: enhanced

Brain tumor Brain biopsy

CT – computed tomography; CVTMBT – cerebral venous thrombosis mimicking brain tumor; DSA – digital subtraction angiography; FDG – fluorodeoxyglucose; MRV – magnetic resonance venography; PET – positron emission tomography; T1 – T1-weighted image; T1+C – T1-weighted image with contrast medium; T2 – T2-weighted image.

*

Protein C deficiency was reported in the original article as a risk factor rather than as definitive diagnostic evidence.

Second, current diagnostic tools have inherent limitations. D-dimer is one of the most accessible and essential tools for screening CVT [15,16]. However, its level can be influenced by various clinical factors, with a positive predictive value of only 55.7% [15]. Among the 13 reported CVTMBT cases, 8 explicitly mentioned D-dimer levels, of which 5 showed normal results (Table 1). Non-contrast CT has limited sensitivity for early CVT. Contrast-enhanced CT venography (CTV), although recognized as a reliable alternative to DSA for the diagnosis of CVT, has limited diagnostic value for cortical vein thrombosis, with reported sensitivities ranging from 6% to 75% [17]. Similarly, MRV failed to detect early venous abnormalities despite being the non-invasive criterion standard [17], and advanced techniques like PET-CT/MRS generated false-positive tumor signals [18]. These limitations highlight the importance of (1) considering preoperative digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in cases with atypical imaging and thrombotic risk factors, and (2) integrating emerging technologies such as magnetic resonance black-blood thrombus imaging (MRBTI), which showed 92% sensitivity in recent studies [19,20]. The need for improved diagnostic tools for CVT emphasizes the importance of better clinical strategies, especially when patients present with non-specific neurological symptoms [21].

Third, delayed CVT diagnosis is associated with significant morbidity. Our patient developed irreversible motor deficits despite receiving appropriate anticoagulation therapy after diagnosis, echoing previous reports in which up to 40% of CVT cases experienced diagnostic delays exceeding 10 days [22]. This underscores the importance of early differentiation from tumors, as their management differs significantly. Tumors are treated with surgical resection, whereas CVT requires anticoagulation and etiology-directed therapy [23,24]. In retrospect, the final pathology report indicating thrombotic infarction could have prompted earlier consideration of CVT, potentially altering the clinical course.

Unfortunately, current diagnostic guidelines for CVT and brain tumor do not explicitly address CVTMBT as a differential consideration [25,26]. This omission increases the likelihood that clinicians overlook CVTMBT when confronted with atypical imaging findings resembling tumors, thereby raising the risk of misdiagnosis and unnecessary neurosurgical interventions. Our case underscores this gap and highlights the need for future guidelines to give greater emphasis to the differential diagnosis between CVT and brain tumors, ideally incorporating structured diagnostic pathways informed by larger clinical studies.

Conclusions

CVTMBT remains a significant diagnostic challenge that is often overlooked in clinical practice. We recommend preoperative CTV or DSA in cases where D-dimer level is elevated or thrombotic risk factors are present. Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial to prevent unnecessary surgical interventions and reduce avoidable neurological deficits. Future studies should focus on validating emerging imaging techniques, such as MRBTI, and incorporating CVTMBT into diagnostic guidelines to reduce the risk of misdiagnosis, avoid unnecessary surgical interventions, and improve clinical outcomes.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: None declared

Patient Consent: Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report.

Declaration of Figures’ Authenticity: All figures submitted have been created by the authors who confirm that the images are original with no duplication and have not been previously published in whole or in part.

Financial support: This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81471180 and 82471305)

References

  • 1.Alet M, Ciardi C, Aleman A, et al. Cerebral venous thrombosis in Argentina: clinical presentation, predisposing factors, outcomes and literature review. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020;29(10):105145. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ropper AH, Klein JP. Cerebral venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(1):59–64. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra2106545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Aguiar de Sousa D, Lucas Neto L. Advances in cerebral venous thrombosis. Stroke. 2024;55(8):2169–72. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.044266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alamlih L, Abdulgayoom M, Menik Arachchige SN, et al. Chronic headache and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis due to varicella zoster virus infection: A case report and review of the literature. Am J Case Rep. 2021;22:e927699. doi: 10.12659/AJCR.927699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bakshi R, Lindsay BD, Bates VE, et al. Cerebral venous infarctions presenting as enhancing space-occupying lesions: MRI findings. J Neuroimaging. 1998;8(4):210–15. doi: 10.1111/jon199884210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gradinscak DJ, Fulham MJ, Besser M, Mohamed A. Post-traumatic cerebral venous infarct mimicking an infiltrative glioma. Clin Nucl Med. 2004;29(1):68–69. doi: 10.1097/01.rlu.0000103233.31619.d1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Xu T, Liang R. Cerebral venous thrombosis with tumor-like features: A case report and review of the literature. World Neurosurg. 2019;124:17–21. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.12.109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yu Y, Ren M, Yao S, et al. Pathological confirmation of 4 cases with isolated cortical vein thrombosis previously misdiagnosed as brain tumor. Oncol Lett. 2016;11(1):649–53. doi: 10.3892/ol.2015.3931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gundogan C, Yardimci AH, Gunes BY, Cermik TF. Subacute venous infarct mimicking cerebral metastasis in 18F-FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2019;44(2):e120–e22. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Masuoka J, Wakamiya T, Mineta T, et al. Thrombosis of the superior petrosal vein mimicking brain tumor. Case report. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2009;49(8):359–61. doi: 10.2176/nmc.49.359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wen H, Jin D, Chen Y, et al. Cerebellar venous thrombosis mimicking a cerebellar tumor due to polycythemia vera: A case report. BMC Neurol. 2021;21(1):225. doi: 10.1186/s12883-021-02261-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Haug V, Linder-Lucht M, Zieger B, et al. Unilateral venous thalamic infarction in a child mimicking a thalamic tumor. J Child Neurol. 2009;24(1):105–9. doi: 10.1177/0883073808321055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wagner MW, Jabehdar Maralani P, Bennett J, et al. Brain tumor imaging in adolescents and young adults: 2021 WHO updates for molecular-based tumor types. Radiology. 2024;310(2):e230777. doi: 10.1148/radiol.230777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Brindle KM, Izquierdo-Garcia JL, Lewis DY, et al. Brain tumor imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(21):2432–38. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.7636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kosinski CM, Mull M, Schwarz M, et al. Do normal D-dimer levels reliably exclude cerebral sinus thrombosis? Stroke. 2004;35(12):2820–25. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000147045.71923.18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Heldner MR, Zuurbier SM, Li B, et al. Prediction of cerebral venous thrombosis with a new clinical score and D-dimer levels. Neurology. 2020;95(7):e898–e909. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.van Dam LF, van Walderveen MAA, Kroft LJM, et al. Current imaging modalities for diagnosing cerebral vein thrombosis – A critical review. Thromb Res. 2020;189:132–39. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.03.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Omuro AM, Leite CC, Mokhtari K, Delattre JY. Pitfalls in the diagnosis of brain tumours. Lancet Neurol. 2006;5(11):937–48. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70597-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Yang Q, Duan J, Fan Z, et al. Early detection and quantification of cerebral venous thrombosis by magnetic resonance black-blood thrombus imaging. Stroke. 2016;47(2):404–9. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yang X, Wu F, Liu Y, et al. Diagnostic performance of MR black-blood thrombus imaging for cerebral venous thrombosis in real-world clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2022;32(3):2041–49. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08286-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Khan F, Seyam M, Sharma N, et al. New horizons for diagnostic pitfalls of cerebral venous thrombosis: clinical utility of a newly developed cerebral venous thrombosis diagnostic score: A case report and literature review. Am J Case Rep. 2021;22:e932123. doi: 10.12659/AJCR.932123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Saposnik G, Barinagarrementeria F, Brown RD, Jr, et al. Diagnosis and management of cerebral venous thrombosis: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2011;42(4):1158–92. doi: 10.1161/STR.0b013e31820a8364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Schuchardt F, Demerath T, Lutzen N, et al. Risk factors for the development of secondary intracranial hypertension in acute cerebral venous thrombosis. Neuroradiology. 2023;65(3):463–77. doi: 10.1007/s00234-022-03091-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Xu S, Tang L, Li X, Fan F, Liu Z. Immunotherapy for glioma: Current management and future application. Cancer Lett. 2020;476:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2020.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Saposnik G, Bushnell C, Coutinho JM, et al. Diagnosis and management of cerebral venous thrombosis: A scientific statement drom the American Heart Association. Stroke. 2024;55(3):e77–e90. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.van den Bent MJ, Geurts M, French PJ, et al. Primary brain tumours in adults. Lancet. 2023;402(10412):1564–79. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01054-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The American Journal of Case Reports are provided here courtesy of International Scientific Information, Inc.

RESOURCES