Skip to main content
Journal of Neurological Surgery Reports logoLink to Journal of Neurological Surgery Reports
. 2016 Jul;77(3):e121–e127. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1588060

Pathological and Topographical Classification of Craniopharyngiomas: A Literature Review

James Lubuulwa 1, Ting Lei 1,
PMCID: PMC4993606  PMID: 27556005

Abstract

Craniopharyngiomas (CPs) are clinically relevant tumors of the sellar region and are associated with high morbidity and occasional mortality. There are two different subtypes of CPs that differ clinically and pathologically: adamantinomatous CP and papillary CP. The differential diagnosis is still challenging even with developments in preoperative imaging as several tumors of the sellar/parasellar region share a continuum of clinical characteristics and imaging similarities. Several topographical classifications of CPs have been mentioned in literature, but to date, there has not been a consensus on a standard reference classification system and there is need to a develop such a model.

Keywords: craniopharyngioma, classification, pathological features, topography

Introduction

Craniopharyngiomas (CPs) are tumors of the sellar and parasellar region and constitute approximately 3% of all intracranial tumors. They are the most common form of nonneuroepithelial neoplasm in pediatric population.1 2 They originate from epithelial remnants anywhere along the obscured craniopharyngeal duct from Rathke's cleft to the floor of the third ventricle.3 4 5 Though classified by World Health Organization as grade 1 tumors,6 there have only been rare reports of malignancy transformation.7 8 9 CPs can cause significant morbidity due to their intimate involvement and mass effect on surrounding structures. Treatment is mainly through surgical resection. Several surgical approaches have been developed depending on topographical location of the tumor,1 4 10 11 12 and post neuroendoscopy radiotherapy,13 Gamma Knife surgery,14 15 and occasional use of Ommaya reservoir placement,16 17 proton beam therapy,18 19 and intracavitary β-irradiation20 21 have been reported in literature.

In this parochial literature review, we focus on the pathological classification and topographical location of CPs, highlighting the differences in two CP subtypes, their clinical presentation, imaging characterization, and the salient pathological and topographical location, and, finally, briefly discuss the differential diagnosis of CPs. For more specific clinical and pathological studies on classification of CPs, other published reviews are recommended.22 23 24 25 26 27

Classification According to Tumor Pathology

There are two different subtypes of CPs that differ clinically and pathologically: adamantinomatous CP (ACP) and papillary CP (PCP). The adamantinomatous variant occurs predominantly in the pediatric population, whereas the papillary variant is seen mostly among adults. The ACPs are much more common than PCP (9:1) and are pathologically distinct.26 ACPs are composed of cystic “motor oil-like” component and solid components and frequently contain calcifications that are readily identifiable on neuroimaging. Histologically, they contain nodules of wet keratin, a palisading basal layer of cells, surrounding gliosis, and profuse Rosenthal fiber formation. In contrast, PCPs are rarely calcified, mostly solid, and better circumscribed, and, if cystic, contents are clear. Müller postulated that PCPs are caused by metaplasia of the adenohypophyseal cells in the pars tuberalis of the adenohypophysis, leading to the formation of squamous cell nests.27 Histologically, they consist of mature squamous epithelium and pseudopapillae with no stellate reticulum or ghost cells. Immunohistochemically, a study by Esheba and Hassan demonstrated that cytoplasm/nuclear β-catenin accumulation as an exclusive characteristic hallmark that can used as a reliable marker for distinguishing between ACP and PCP.23 However, there exist some overlapping features between the two subtypes that led to the hypothesis that CPs fall on a histopathological continuum with other cystic epithelial sellar lesions.26 Crotty et al found no significant differences between the two CP subtypes with respect to respectability, efficacy if radiation therapy, and overall survival.28

The salient features of these tumors are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Comparison of clinical and imaging features of adamantinomatous and papillary craniopharyngiomas.

Feature Adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma Papillary craniopharyngioma
Incidence, %2 90 10
Age28 Bimodal, peak incidences 1–5 y and 50–60 y Almost exclusively adult51
Sex2 52 No gender preference observed No gender preference observed
Visual disturbances42 Frequent Frequent
Hypothalamic disturbances27 Possible Frequent
High ICP symptoms27 39 Usual Frequent
Endocrine disturbances28 Frequent Unusual
Headache27 Frequent Frequent
Mental disturbances Frequent unusual
Ataxia23
Imaging characteristics44
General imaging features Supra- and intrasellar, multilobulated and multicystic mass Usually suprasellar, mostly solid and spherical mass
MRI T1: solid regions are hypo- or isointense, cystic regions are hyperintense
Strong heterogeneous enhancement
Hyperintense on T2
T1: hypointense; cystic regions, if present, are hypointense
Moderate homogenous enhancement
Hyperintense on T2
CT53 Solid regions and cyst wall enhancement
Calcifications visible
Contrast enhancing with no calcifications

Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; ICP, intracranial pressure; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

Table 2. Comparison of pathological features of adamantinomatous and papillary craniopharyngiomas.

Features Adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma Papillary craniopharyngioma
Pathological features
Tumor origin Along pituitary stalk Infundibulum and TVF
Main location Suprasellar 75%, Intrasellar 20% Infundibulum and third ventricle
Third ventricle invasion39 54 In 50% In > 90%
Lesion covered by sellar diaphragm Generally Only in infradiaphragmatic CPs Exceptionally
Tumor size55 3–6 cm at diagnosis 2–3 cm at diagnosis
Tumor shape Multilobulated or elliptical in 85% Rounded or spherical in 85%
Tumor consistency44 Solid-cystic multilocular in 80% Unilocular cyst or pure solid in (50%)
Hemorrhagic fluid content Frequent Exceptional
Macroscopic features
Boundary Lobular with sharp, irregular interface, adherent to surrounding structures, invasive
Tight to chiasm, vessels stalk, and TVF
Encapsulated, discrete, often solid; usually no adherence to surrounding structures, exceptionally tight to infundibulum
Cysts Cyst contents have dark, “motor oil-like” appearance with cholesterol crystals; leakage can result in chemical meningitis When cystic, contents are clear
Cystic degeneration In >90% In unilocular cysts
Calcifications In 90% of children and 40% of adults Exceptional
Histopathological features and immunohistochemical expression23
Architecture Multicystic, well circumscribed, but with finger-like protrusions into palisading epithelium Discrete, encapsulated, often solid
Cellular composition Peripheral palisading epithelium
Stellate reticulum comprising low aggregates of stellate cells
Nodules containing anuclear “ghost cells”/wet keratin
Epithelial whorls with nuclear β-catenin expression
Squamous and well-differentiated, nonkeratinizing epithelium
Fibrovascular core, no stellate reticulum
Pseudopapillae resulting from epithelial dehiscence, no “ghost cells”/wet keratin
No nuclear β-catenin translocation
Wnt pathway26 Mutations in CTNNB1 at SS3, S37, S45, and T4122
No BRAF p.Val600Glu mutations
No mutations found in CTNNB1
Recently, overactivating mutations in BRAF p.Val600Glu have been described in association with PCP56
Odontogenic features Enamelin, amelogenin, and enamelysin expressed Odontogenic markers not expressed
β-catenin23 Present (cellular and nuclear membrane) Only present in cellular membrane
EGFR Can be present or absent Can be present or absent
ErbB2 Can be present or absent Can be present or absent
p63 Present in nuclei of basal layer cells and whorl-like areas Present, restricted to lower third of stratified epithelial cells
Other features Piloid gliosis common in peritumoral brain
Encasement of blood vessels
Chronic inflammation Xanthogranulomatous reaction, occasional ossification
Scant goblet/ciliated cells in cyst lining
Resembling Rathke's cleft cyst; occasionally small, collagenous whorls

Abbreviations: CPs, craniopharyngiomas; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; PCP, papillary craniopharyngioma; TVF, third ventricle floor.

Classification According to Tumor Topography

Craniopharyngiomas can arise anywhere along the craniopharyngeal canal, although majorities arise in the sella/parasellar region. Because of their benign nature, they grow silently and are usually present clinically when they are already large with extension into the surrounding sellar region, usually adhering and compressing vital neurologic structures within their vicinity, consequently causing neurologic signs and symptoms. The majority of CPs have suprasellar and supra–intrasellar components, whereas strictly intrasellar CPs are the least common. Furthermore, ectopic and fetal CPs add to the continuum of possible locations of CPs. Several authors have reported primary ectopic CPs in various locations of the cranium: temporal lobe,29 frontotemporal lobe,3 extracranial infrasellar,30 cerebellopontine angle,31 ethmoid sinus,32 and petroclival.33 However, there is no consensus for the mechanism for ectopic occurrence. Theories have been described that stipulate contamination with tumor cells along the surgical tract and vertical spread via cerebrospinal fluid ,3 but more important is the embryogenical theory that CPs may arise from any location along the craniopharyngeal duct. Fetal ACPs have been reported in utero by several authors.34 35 36 37 Kostadinov et al reported an echodense structure at the intracranial midline with an irregular outline measuring 3.1 × 2.69 cm, which displaced the lateral ventricles and choroid plexus detected by prenatal ultrasound and further histology studies of the fetus specimen revealed an ACP. In the same report, they suggested that CP account for approximately 11% of fetal tumors.37

Various grading systems have been suggested by several authors to aid in planning of surgical route either from preoperative images of MRI scans or based on intraoperative views of the anatomical structures involved with or surrounding the tumor.4 Pascual et al reported no significant relation between age and CP topography38 and noted significant association between topography and occurrence of postoperative hypothalamic damage and a strong relation between CP location, and the type of surgical approach and degree of tumor removal. Several authors have reported cases where a mistaken surgical approach was used due to topographical misdiagnosis of the location of CP despite the use of magnetic resonance (MR) images.39 40 41 It is important to consider each case on an individual basis as the imaging characteristics of each pathology and individual anatomical variation strongly influence whether a lesion is treated via a particular approach. Although there has been no consensus on a single standard classification system, several authors have attempted to topographically grade CPs according to preoperative MR images and/or with intraoperative findings. Table 3 summarizes some of the most notable classification systems from studied literature.

Table 3. Summary of topographical classification of craniopharyngiomas from published literature.

Authors Year Basis of classification Classification system
Yasargil et al57 1990 Relation with diaphragm Purely intrasellar–infradiaphragmatic
Intra- and suprasellar, infra- and supradiaphragmatic
Supradiaphragmatic parachiasmatic, extraventricular
Intra- and extraventricular
Paraventricular in respect to the third ventricle
Purely intraventricular
Hoffman1 1994 Relation with ventricle Preventricular
Subventricular
Retrochiasmatic
Intraventricular
Samii and Tatagiba58 1997 Tumor extension I: intrasellar or infradiaphragm
II: occupying the cistern with/without an intrasellar component
III: lower half of the third ventricle
IV: upper half of the third ventricle
V: reaching the septum pellucidum or lateral ventricles
Kassam et al59 2008 Relation with stalk Preinfundibular
Transinfundibular
Retroinfundibular
Isolated intraventricular
Pascual et al39 2004 Relation with third ventricle Suprasellar tumor pushing the intact third ventricle floor upward
Suprasellar mass breaking through the third ventricle floor and invading the third ventricle cavity
Intraventricular mass within the third ventricle cavity and floor, the latter being replaced by the tumor
Intraventricular mass completely located within the third ventricle cavity and with the intact floor lying below its inferior surface
Qi et al60 2011 Growth pattern of arachnoid envelope around the stalk Infradiaphragmatic
Extra-arachnoidal
Intra-arachnoidal
Subarachnoidal
Fatemi et al61 2009 Anatomic extension of tumor Retrochiasmal
Sellar and suprasellar
Cavernous sinus invasion
Far lateral extension
Jeswani et al42 2016 Endoscopic view of Infundibular Infundibular I
Infundibular II
Infundibular III
Matsuo et al62 2014 Anatomic association between CP and sellar diaphragm, hypophyseal stalk, and optic nerve Relation with diaphragm
 Subdiaphragmatic (complete, incomplete)
 Supradiaphragmatic
Relation with hypophyseal stalk
 Preinfundibular
 lateroinfundibular
 retroinfundibular
 transinfundibular
Relation with optic nerve
 Prechiasmatic type
 Retrochiasmatic type
 Other (pure intrasellar)
Tumor extension
 Third ventricle
 Interpeduncular cistern
 Prepontine cistern
 Frontal base
 Cavernous sinus
Sphenous sinus
 Sellar type
 Presellar type
 Concha type

Differential Diagnosis with Other Tumors of Sellar Region

The differential diagnosis in pathology of sellar masses includes hypothalamic glioma, optic glioma, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, Rathke's cleft cyst, xanthogranuloma, intracranial germinoma, epidermoid tumor, thrombosis of arachnoid cysts, colloidal cyst of third ventricle, pituitary adenoma, an aneurysm, and rare inflammatory variations. Clinically, it is not easy to distinguish because patients with these tumors usually present with nonspecific features such as headache, hypopituitarism, or visual disturbances.39 42 43 On the contrary, Choi et al found that despite the characteristic MR imaging (MRI) findings of the most common sellar region tumors including pituitary adenoma, CPs, and Rathke's cleft cyst, which are well known and significantly distinct to each tumor, it is still challenging to arrive at a differential diagnosis of these tumors,44 although their study demonstrated that tumor characteristics and enhancement patterns could be accurately used in the diagnostic flowchart generated to differentiate these three tumors. The introduction of new technologies, such as the recently developed intraoperative high-field MRI with microscope-based neuronavigation45 46 47 and brain perfusion imaging of CPs by transcranial duplex sonography,48 might lead to a more advanced way of developing a preoperative–intraoperative basis for a standard topographical classification. Immunohistochemically, CP is positive for pancytokeratin but negative for CK28 or CK20, which is exclusively expressed in Rathke's cyst, yet another marker for differential diagnosis for CP.49 Additionally, Kim et al recently reported a BRAF V600E mutation as a useful marker in differentiating Rathke's cleft cyst with squamous metaplasia from PCP.50 Scagliotti et al demonstrated that ACPs are devoid of terminally differentiated pituitary hormone producing cells, which aid in differential diagnosis from other pituitary or sellar region tumors.25

Conclusion

The topographical classification of these subtypes is not purely distinct compared with other tumors of the sellar region, and in as much as it aids in the surgical approach, it has not fully been beneficial in the differential diagnosis from other tumors, with histopathological immunostaining remaining the main stay for confirming a diagnosis of CP. To date, no standardized topographical classification system has been agreed among neuroradiologists and surgeons, and further studies are necessary to design a clinical-based classification system, which could aid in the surgical planning for determining tumor extent for surgery and radiotherapy, as well as posttherapy monitoring.

References

  • 1.Hoffman H J. Surgical management of craniopharyngioma. Pediatr Neurosurg. 1994;21 01:44–49. doi: 10.1159/000120861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bunin G R, Surawicz T S, Witman P A, Preston-Martin S, Davis F, Bruner J M. The descriptive epidemiology of craniopharyngioma. Neurosurg Focus. 1997;3(6):e1. doi: 10.3171/foc.1997.3.6.4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ortega-Porcayo L A, Ponce-Gómez J A, Martínez-Moreno M, Portocarrero-Ortíz L, Tena-Suck M L, Gómez-Amador J L. Primary ectopic frontotemporal craniopharyngioma. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2015;9:57–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2014.12.038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bosnjak R, Benedicic M, Vittori A. Early outcome in endoscopic extended endonasal approach for removal of supradiaphragmatic craniopharyngiomas: a case series and a comprehensive review. Radiol Oncol. 2013;47(3):266–279. doi: 10.2478/raon-2013-0036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Komotar R J, Starke R M, Raper D M, Anand V K, Schwartz T H. Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas. World Neurosurg. 2012;77(2):329–341. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2011.07.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Louis D N, Ohgaki H, Wiestler O D. et al. The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol. 2007;114(2):97–109. doi: 10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wang W, Chen X D, Bai H M. et al. Malignant transformation of craniopharyngioma with detailed follow-up. Neuropathology. 2015;35(1):50–55. doi: 10.1111/neup.12142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ishida M, Hotta M, Tsukamura A. et al. Malignant transformation in craniopharyngioma after radiation therapy: a case report and review of the literature. Clin Neuropathol. 2010;29(1):2–8. doi: 10.5414/npp29002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lauriola L, Doglietto F, Novello M. et al. De novo malignant craniopharyngioma: case report and literature review. J Neurooncol. 2011;103(2):381–386. doi: 10.1007/s11060-010-0382-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Coppens J R, Couldwell W T. Staged use of the transsphenoidal approach to resect superior third ventricular craniopharyngiomas. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2010;53(1):40–43. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1246160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wilson D A Duong H Teo C Kelly D F The supraorbital endoscopic approach for tumors World Neurosurg 201482(6, Suppl):S72–S80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gu Y, Zhang X, Hu F. et al. Suprachiasmatic translamina terminalis corridor used in endoscopic endonasal approach for resecting third ventricular craniopharyngioma. J Neurosurg. 2015;122(5):1166–1172. doi: 10.3171/2015.1.JNS132842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Takano S, Akutsu H, Mizumoto M, Yamamoto T, Tsuboi K, Matsumura A. Neuroendoscopy followed by radiotherapy in cystic craniopharyngiomas–a long-term follow-up. World Neurosurg. 2015;84(5):1305–1315.e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.06.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lee C C Yang H C Chen C J et al. Gamma Knife surgery for craniopharyngioma: report on a 20-year experience J Neurosurg 2014121(Suppl):167–178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Liu A Wang J M Li G L et al. Clinical and pathological analysis of benign brain tumors resected after Gamma Knife surgery J Neurosurg 2014121(Suppl):179–187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shukla D. Transcortical transventricular endoscopic approach and Ommaya reservoir placement for cystic craniopharyngioma. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2015;50(5):291–294. doi: 10.1159/000433605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yamini B, Narayanan M. Craniopharyngiomas: an update. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2006;6 09:S85–S92. doi: 10.1586/14737140.6.9s.S85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Uh J, Merchant T E, Li Y. et al. Effects of surgery and proton therapy on cerebral white matter of craniopharyngioma patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;93(1):64–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.05.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pulsifer M B, Sethi R V, Kuhlthau K A, MacDonald S M, Tarbell N J, Yock T I. Early cognitive outcomes following proton radiation in pediatric patients with brain and central nervous system tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;93(2):400–407. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.06.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Maarouf M, El Majdoub F, Fuetsch M. et al. Stereotactic intracavitary brachytherapy with P-32 for cystic craniopharyngiomas in children. Strahlenther Onkol. 2016;192(3):157–165. doi: 10.1007/s00066-015-0910-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kickingereder P, Maarouf M, El Majdoub F. et al. Intracavitary brachytherapy using stereotactically applied phosphorus-32 colloid for treatment of cystic craniopharyngiomas in 53 patients. J Neurooncol. 2012;109(2):365–374. doi: 10.1007/s11060-012-0902-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Martinez-Barbera J P. 60 years of neuroendocrinology: biology of human craniopharyngioma: lessons from mouse models. J Endocrinol. 2015;226(2):T161–T172. doi: 10.1530/JOE-15-0145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Esheba G E, Hassan A A. Comparative immunohistochemical expression of β-catenin, EGFR, ErbB2, and p63 in adamantinomatous and papillary craniopharyngiomas. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2015;27(3):139–145. doi: 10.1016/j.jnci.2015.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hussain I, Eloy J A, Carmel P W, Liu J K. Molecular oncogenesis of craniopharyngioma: current and future strategies for the development of targeted therapies. J Neurosurg. 2013;119(1):106–112. doi: 10.3171/2013.3.JNS122214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Scagliotti V, Avagliano L, Gualtieri A. et al. Histopathology and molecular characterisation of intrauterine-diagnosed congenital craniopharyngioma. Pituitary. 2016;19(1):50–56. doi: 10.1007/s11102-015-0682-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Larkin S J, Ansorge O. Pathology and pathogenesis of craniopharyngiomas. Pituitary. 2013;16(1):9–17. doi: 10.1007/s11102-012-0418-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Müller H L. Craniopharyngioma. Endocr Rev. 2014;35(3):513–543. doi: 10.1210/er.2013-1115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Crotty T B, Scheithauer B W, Young W F Jr. et al. Papillary craniopharyngioma: a clinicopathological study of 48 cases. J Neurosurg. 1995;83(2):206–214. doi: 10.3171/jns.1995.83.2.0206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sohn C H, Baik S K, Kim S P, Kim I M, Sevick R J. Craniopharyngioma in the temporal lobe: a case report. Korean J Radiol. 2004;5(1):72–74. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2004.5.1.72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nourbakhsh A, Brown B, Vannemreddy P, Lian T, Nanda A, Guthikonda B. Extracranial infrasellar ectopic craniopharyngioma: a case report and review of the literature. Skull Base. 2010;20(6):475–480. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1261269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Link M J Driscoll C L Giannini C Isolated, giant cerebellopontine angle craniopharyngioma in a patient with Gardner syndrome: case report Neurosurgery 2002511221–225., discussion 225–226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jiang R S, Wu C Y, Jan Y J, Hsu C Y. Primary ethmoid sinus craniopharyngioma: a case report. J Laryngol Otol. 1998;112(4):403–405. doi: 10.1017/s0022215100140599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lee Y H, Kim S D, Lim D J, Park J Y, Chung Y G, Kim Y S. Isolated petroclival craniopharyngioma with aggressive skull base destruction. Yonsei Med J. 2009;50(5):729–731. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2009.50.5.729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jurkiewicz E, Bekiesińska-Figatowska M, Duczkowski M. et al. Antenatal diagnosis of the congenital craniopharyngioma. Pol J Radiol. 2010;75(1):98–102. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lonjon M, Dran G, Casagrande F, Vandenbos F, Mas J C, Richelme C. Prenatal diagnosis of a craniopharyngioma: a new case with radical surgery and review. Childs Nerv Syst. 2005;21(3):177–180. doi: 10.1007/s00381-004-1019-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Joó J G, Rigó J Jr, Sápi Z, Timár B. Foetal craniopharyngioma diagnosed by prenatal ultrasonography and confirmed by histopathological examination. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29(2):160–163. doi: 10.1002/pd.2202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kostadinov S, Hanley C L, Lertsburapa T, O'Brien B, He M. Fetal craniopharyngioma: management, postmortem diagnosis, and literature review of an intracranial tumor detected in utero. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2014;17(5):409–412. doi: 10.2350/14-06-1506-CR.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pascual J M, Prieto R, Castro-Dufourny I, Carrasco R, Strauss S, Barrios L. Development of intracranial approaches for craniopharyngiomas: an analysis of the first 160 historical procedures. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(4):E13. doi: 10.3171/2014.2.FOCUS13567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Pascual J M, González-Llanos F, Barrios L, Roda J M. Intraventricular craniopharyngiomas: topographical classification and surgical approach selection based on an extensive overview. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2004;146(8):785–802. doi: 10.1007/s00701-004-0295-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fukushima T, Hirakawa K, Kimura M, Tomonaga M. Intraventricular craniopharyngioma: its characteristics in magnetic resonance imaging and successful total removal. Surg Neurol. 1990;33(1):22–27. doi: 10.1016/0090-3019(90)90220-j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Davies M J, King T T, Metcalfe K A, Monson J P. Intraventricular craniopharyngioma: a long-term follow-up of six cases. Br J Neurosurg. 1997;11(6):533–541. doi: 10.1080/02688699745691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Jeswani S, Nuño M, Wu A. et al. Comparative analysis of outcomes following craniotomy and expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal resection of craniopharyngioma and related tumors: a single-institution study. J Neurosurg. 2016;124(3):627–638. doi: 10.3171/2015.3.JNS142254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kasliwal M K, Dua S G, Harbhajanka A, Nag S, Jhaveri M D, Moftakhar R. Intrasphenoidal Rathke's cleft cyst. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(10):1678–1682. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Choi S H, Kwon B J, Na D G, Kim J H, Han M H, Chang K H. Pituitary adenoma, craniopharyngioma, and Rathke cleft cyst involving both intrasellar and suprasellar regions: differentiation using MRI. Clin Radiol. 2007;62(5):453–462. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2006.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Leuthardt E C Lim C C Shah M N et al. Use of movable high-field-strength intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging with awake craniotomies for resection of gliomas: preliminary experience Neurosurgery 2011691194–205., discussion 205–206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lu J F, Zhang J, Wu J S. et al. Awake craniotomy and intraoperative language cortical mapping for eloquent cerebral glioma resection: preliminary clinical practice in 3.0 T intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging integrated surgical suite [in Chinese] Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2011;49(8):693–698. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Nimsky C, Ganslandt O, von Keller B, Fahlbusch R. Preliminary experience in glioma surgery with intraoperative high-field MRI. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 2003;88:21–29. doi: 10.1007/978-3-7091-6090-9_5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hölscher T, Draganski B, Postert T, Bogdahn U, Wilkening W. Brain perfusion imaging of a craniopharyngioma by transcranial duplex sonography. J Neuroimaging. 2003;13(4):303–306. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Xin W, Rubin M A, McKeever P E. Differential expression of cytokeratins 8 and 20 distinguishes craniopharyngioma from Rathke cleft cyst. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126(10):1174–1178. doi: 10.5858/2002-126-1174-DEOCAD. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kim J H, Paulus W, Heim S. BRAF V600E mutation is a useful marker for differentiating Rathke's cleft cyst with squamous metaplasia from papillary craniopharyngioma. J Neurooncol. 2015;123(1):189–191. doi: 10.1007/s11060-015-1757-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Nielsen E H, Feldt-Rasmussen U, Poulsgaard L. et al. Incidence of craniopharyngioma in Denmark (n = 189) and estimated world incidence of craniopharyngioma in children and adults. J Neurooncol. 2011;104(3):755–763. doi: 10.1007/s11060-011-0540-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Sorva R, Heiskanen O. Craniopharyngioma in Finland. A study of 123 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1986;81(3–4):85–89. doi: 10.1007/BF01401226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sorva R, Jääskinen J, Heiskanen O, Perheentupa J. Postoperative computed tomographic control of 38 patients with craniopharyngioma. Surg Neurol. 1988;29(2):115–119. doi: 10.1016/0090-3019(88)90067-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Behari S Banerji D Mishra A et al. Intrinsic third ventricular craniopharyngiomas: report on six cases and a review of the literature Surg Neurol 2003603245–252., discussion 252–253 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Pascual J M, Prieto R, Mazzarello P. Sir Victor Horsley: pioneer craniopharyngioma surgeon. J Neurosurg. 2015;123(1):39–51. doi: 10.3171/2014.12.JNS1429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Brastianos P K, Taylor-Weiner A, Manley P E. et al. Exome sequencing identifies BRAF mutations in papillary craniopharyngiomas. Nat Genet. 2014;46(2):161–165. doi: 10.1038/ng.2868. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Yaşargil M G, Curcic M, Kis M, Siegenthaler G, Teddy P J, Roth P. Total removal of craniopharyngiomas. Approaches and long-term results in 144 patients. J Neurosurg. 1990;73(1):3–11. doi: 10.3171/jns.1990.73.1.0003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Samii M, Tatagiba M. Surgical management of craniopharyngiomas: a review. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 1997;37(2):141–149. doi: 10.2176/nmc.37.141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kassam A B, Gardner P A, Snyderman C H, Carrau R L, Mintz A H, Prevedello D M. Expanded endonasal approach, a fully endoscopic transnasal approach for the resection of midline suprasellar craniopharyngiomas: a new classification based on the infundibulum. J Neurosurg. 2008;108(4):715–728. doi: 10.3171/JNS/2008/108/4/0715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Qi S, Lu Y, Pan J, Zhang X, Long H, Fan J. Anatomic relations of the arachnoidea around the pituitary stalk: relevance for surgical removal of craniopharyngiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2011;153(4):785–796. doi: 10.1007/s00701-010-0940-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Fatemi N Dusick J R de Paiva Neto M A Malkasian D Kelly D F Endonasal versus supraorbital keyhole removal of craniopharyngiomas and tuberculum sellae meningiomas Neurosurgery 200964502269–284., discussion 284–286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Matsuo T, Kamada K, Izumo T, Nagata I. Indication and limitations of endoscopic extended transsphenoidal surgery for craniopharyngioma. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2014;54(12):974–982. doi: 10.2176/nmc.oa.2014-0038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Neurological Surgery Reports are provided here courtesy of Thieme Medical Publishers

RESOURCES