Skip to main content
BMJ Case Reports logoLink to BMJ Case Reports
. 2022 Sep 15;15(9):e250566. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2022-250566

Gamma Knife radiosurgery for a recurrent craniocervical junction solitary fibrous tumour

Orlando De Jesus 1,, Cesar M Carballo Cuello 1, Ricardo J Fernández-de Thomas 1, Emil A Pastrana 1
PMCID: PMC9486226  PMID: 36113959

Abstract

Spinal solitary fibrous tumour (SFT) is an uncommon tumour with few cases reported in the literature. It rarely originates at the craniocervical junction. To our knowledge, only eight cases of spinal SFT located at the craniocervical junction have been reported in the literature. We presented a patient with a craniocervical junction SFT and discussed its clinical presentation, radiological features, pathology, management and outcome. This was the first patient reported in the literature with a recurrent craniocervical junction SFT treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery. The treatment reduced the tumour volume by more than 85% within 12 months.

Keywords: neurosurgery, pathology, CNS cancer, neurooncology, radiotherapy

Background

Haemangiopericytoma, a rare central nervous system (CNS) tumour, was first described in 1942 by Stout and Murray.1 These tumours accounted for 1% of all CNS tumours, most commonly occurring in the brain but rarely in the spine or craniocervical junction.2 Patients with this tumour frequently presented late local recurrences and extraneural metastasis.3 The tumour can be found in other body parts, most commonly in the extremities, pelvis, retroperitoneum, head and neck areas; however, it was named solitary fibrous tumour (SFT) at these locations.4 In 2016, the WHO combined SFT and haemangiopericytoma to create the combined term SFT/haemangiopericytoma, as both tumours show a fusion of the NAB2 and STAT6 genes.5 Recently, the 2021 WHO classification of tumours of the CNS eliminated the combined term, and the tumour is now named SFT, using Arabic numerals for the tumour grade.6 SFT is classified into three grades. Grade 1 refers to highly collagenous, relatively low cellularity, spindle cell lesions; grade 2 includes more cellular, less collagenous tumours with less than five mitoses per 10 high-power fields with plump cells and staghorn vasculature; and grade 3 are lesions with five or more mitoses per 10 high-power fields.5 6 To the best of our knowledge, only eight cases of SFT at the craniocervical junction have been reported.7–14 We presented the ninth case of a craniocervical junction SFT and the first one with a recurrent lesion treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS).

Case presentation

A woman in her early 40s without medical history complained of progressive upper neck and posterior head pain for 3 weeks without improvement after using oral medications. The patient was evaluated at the outpatient clinic and complained of significant right-sided occipital neuralgia. She had no motor weakness, no paraesthesias, no cranial nerve palsies, a negative Romberg test and normal deep tendon reflexes. An MRI of the brain showed a contrast-enhancing posterolateral intradural-extramedullary lesion at the craniocervical junction measuring 2.5 × 2.1 × 2.3 cm (tumour volume 6 cm3), extending down to C2 compressing the medulla and spinal cord (figure 1). Using brain and spinal intraoperative neuromonitoring, the patient underwent a suboccipital craniectomy, C1-2 laminectomy with complete tumour resection, coagulation of the affected dura and closure with a dural matrix substitute. The patient developed a right spinal accessory nerve palsy postoperatively, producing a 2/5 weakness in shoulder elevation without any other neurological deficit. Her occipital neuralgia resolved, and she was discharged home on the third postoperative day. After physical therapy, the patient regained total shoulder elevation 3 weeks later.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Initial MRI of the brain shows a right posterolateral intradural-extramedullary contrast-enhancing lesion at the craniocervical junction with medullary compression (white arrow). (A) Sagittal T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced image; (B) axial T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced image.

Microscopic pathological examination showed a spindle cell lesion with prominent staghorn vessels. Immunostains were positive for CD34, Bcl-2, CD99 and vimentin, and negative for pankeratin, actin, desmin, chromogranin, EMA, S-100, CD56 and GFAP. The Ki-67 proliferation index was 20%, with 15 mitoses per 10 high-power field on the phosphohistone H3 stain. At the time of the original surgery, the diagnosis was reported as a craniocervical haemangiopericytoma, but it was reclassified as an SFT grade 3 according to 2021 WHO classification of tumours of the CNS (figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

(A) Photomicrograph of the pathological specimen shows a uniform cellular spindle cell lesion with branching blood vessels in the central area (H&E 40×); (B) higher magnification of the solitary fibrous tumour highlighting spindle cells around the vessels (H&E 400×); (C) immunohistochemistry stain with diffuse positivity for CD34 and highlighted vascularity (200×); (D) Ki-67 immunohistochemistry with a proliferation index of 20% (200×).

She was recommended to receive adjuvant radiotherapy due to the high mitotic index; however, she refused. The patient was followed in the outpatient clinic with a yearly MRI of the brain without evidence of tumour recurrence. Eight years after the surgical resection, she developed bilateral upper extremity paraesthesias associated with neck pain.

Investigations

An MRI of the brain showed tumour recurrence with a left-sided ventral intradural-extramedullary lesion at the craniocervical junction measuring 2.8 × 1.8 × 3.5 cm (tumour volume 8.8 cm3) and other small dural-based posterior fossa tandem contrast-enhancing lesions (figure 3). A smaller separate anterior dural lesion at C2-3 and another small suprasellar lesion were also identified.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

An MRI of the brain 8 years later shows the contrast-enhancing recurrent lesion at the craniocervical junction. (A) Sagittal T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced views show the ventral intradural-extramedullary contrast-enhancing lesion (white arrow), one of the cerebellar extra-axial tandem lesions, a small C2-3 contrast-enhancing dural-based lesion and a suprasellar lesion; (B) axial T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced views show a left-sided ventral intradural-extramedullary contrast-enhancing lesion at the craniocervical junction with cord compression (white arrow).

Treatment

The larger craniovertebral junction lesion was located at the original tumour site; thus, a biopsy was not considered as these tumours have a great propensity to recur. During the first surgery, the dural attachment was coagulated but not resected, increasing the risk of recurrence. Additionally, the patient did not want a reoperation. Radiosurgery was offered to the patient due to the encasement of the vertebral artery and the additional lesions. The patient received GKRS treatment to the craniocervical junction and the posterior fossa tandem lesions during a single session without complications. The margin and maximum doses delivered were 16 Gy and 32 Gy, respectively, with a median prescription isodose line of 50%.

Outcome and follow-up

The patient’s neck pain and upper extremity paraesthesias improved. Five months after receiving the GKRS, an MRI of the brain showed a reduction in the size of the craniocervical junction lesion, measuring 2.1 × 0.9 × 2.9 cm (tumour volume 2.7 cm3), with decreased mass effect on the adjacent brainstem (figure 4). There was also a reduction in the size of the tandem extra-axial posterior fossa lesions but an interval increase in the size of the C2-3 intradural-extramedullary lesion and the suprasellar lesion. The C2-3 intradural-extramedullary lesion was surgically removed 2 months later without complications. The pathological diagnosis was consistent with an SFT grade 3, similar to the tumour removed 8 years prior. Twelve months after the GKRS, a new MRI of the brain showed further reduction in the size of the craniocervical junction lesion, now measuring 1.8 × 0.7 × 1.7 cm (tumour volume 1.1 cm3) with no mass effect on the adjacent brainstem; however, the suprasellar lesion showed further enlargement and was later treated with GKRS without complications (figure 5).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

An MRI of the brain T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced views 5 months after Gamma Knife radiosurgery shows the reduction in the left intradural-extramedullary contrast-enhancing lesion at the craniocervical junction (white arrow) with an increased size of the suprasellar lesion (bent white arrow). (A) Sagittal; (B) axial.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

An MRI of the brain T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced views 12 months after Gamma Knife radiosurgery shows additional tumour reduction (white arrow) but enlargement of the suprasellar lesion (bent white arrow). (A) Sagittal; (B) axial.

Discussion

Intraspinal SFT is a rare extra-axial tumour with a strong tendency to recur and metastasise.3 Liu et al reviewed 26 spinal cases and further characterised them into types I-III depending on their morphology and localisation as extradural, intradural or intra-extradural paravertebral type.3 Surgery is the primary mode of treatment for spinal SFT, with gross total resection recommended when possible.14 Prognosis is usually favourable if gross total resection can be accomplished. Several studies have reported that the pathological grade is the only significant factor associated with recurrence and survival time; therefore, a maximal safe resection is ideal.3 15 The 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate for spinal cases is 96%–100% and the 5-year rate is 76%–77%, with a recurrence-free rate of 30%.3 15 Betchen et al reported that extradural tumours recurred earlier than intradural tumours (2.6 years vs 6 years, respectively).16 The recurrence-free period for our patient who had an intradural SFT was slightly longer.

Only eight craniocervical junction SFT cases have been previously reported in the literature (table 1).7–14 Most authors have reported adequate resections with good outcomes using the suboccipital craniectomy, similar to our approach.7–10 13 14 Arai et al used a transcondylar far-lateral approach advocating a wider surgical corridor, improved haemostasis and excellent outcome.11 SFT is highly vascularised; thus, for a ventral craniocervical junction lesion, a strategic surgical plan must be designed to localise its feeders and maximise the surgical exposure for adequate resection, avoiding brainstem retraction and direct visualisation of its dural attachments.17 18 Preoperative embolisation of the tumour has been recommended in some cases to prevent significant intraoperative bleeding and maximise resection, especially when an ‘en bloc’ resection is not possible.19 20 Lee et al reported on a patient with a craniocervical SFT in which they had to use intraoperative endovascular embolisation after experiencing uncontrolled haemorrhage.9 Embolisation provides an additional alternative to treat these tumours, providing good outcomes and an improved extent of resection.

Table 1.

Craniocervical junction solitary fibrous tumours reported in the literature

Author Age Sex Presentation Treatment Resection Recurrence
Brunori et al7 18 M Left limb paraesthesia, urinary retention and weakness in upper limbs Suboccipital craniectomy with C1-2 laminectomies Total None at 12 months
Drazin et al8 56 M Headaches and neck pain radiating to both shoulders Suboccipital craniectomy with C1-4 laminectomies Gross total resection None at 5 years
Lee et al9 21 M Neck pain and tingling in both hands Suboccipital craniectomy, C1-2 hemilaminectomy and intraoperative endovascular embolisation Gross total resection None at 12 months
Hernandez et al10 23 F Vomiting, headaches, obtunded, hydrocephalus and left VI cranial nerve palsy Ventriculoperitoneal shunt, endoscopic third ventriculostomy and suboccipital craniotomy Partial resection No follow-up
Arai et al11 38 M Neck pain, headaches, nausea, bilateral shoulder and hand paraesthesias Far-lateral transcondylar approach and suboccipital craniotomy Gross total resection None at 10 months
Kweh et al12 38 M Not reported Surgical resection Not reported Yes, at 12 years and 5 years later
Yamaguchi et al13 55 F Bilateral upper limb numbness, gait disturbance and weakness all extremities Suboccipital craniectomy, cervical laminectomy and Cyber Knife to the residual lesion (25 Gy/5 fractions) Subtotal with small residual None at 6 months
Nishii et al14 68 F Numbness in right upper limb Suboccipital craniectomy with C1-3 laminectomies Subtotal (almost complete) None at 18 months
Current case 41 F Neck pain Suboccipital craniectomy, C1-2 laminectomy, Gamma Knife radiosurgery to the recurrent lesion Gross total resection Yes, at 8 years

Radiotherapy has been recommended for cases with subtotal resection, aggressive phenotype and recurrent cases where a repeat surgery was contraindicated.21–23 Even in patients with complete resection, adjuvant radiation has been shown to improve survival.24 GKRS has been used for intracranial and spinal SFT as adjuvant therapy for residual or recurrent tumours with reasonable tumour control rates.3 25–27 GKRS to a recurrent SFT at the craniocervical region has not been previously used. This case demonstrates that GKRS can be a safe and effective treatment for recurrent SFT located at the craniocervical junction. Recently, some authors have reported shorter recurrence-free survival and overall survival in patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery before the tumour resection.28 29 Therefore, stereotactic radiosurgery is recommended for residual and recurrent tumours. Antiangiogenics agents have been recently used with optimistic results.30

Learning points.

  • Craniocervical junction solitary fibrous tumour (SFT) is a rare tumour that can recur and spread with high frequency.

  • Recurrent craniocervical junction SFT can be treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) with a significant volume reduction of the lesion.

  • GKRS can be a safe and effective treatment for recurrent SFT located at the craniocervical junction.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Román Vélez Rosario, MD, and Jasmine Figueroa Díaz, MD, from the University of Puerto Rico, Medical Science Campus, Department of Pathology, for providing the histopathological images and descriptions used in our case presentation.

Footnotes

Contributors: Conception and design: ODJ, CMCC and EAP. Data analysis and interpretation: ODJ, CMCC and EAP. Drafting the manuscript: ODJ, CMCC, RJFT and EAP. Final approval of manuscript: ODJ, CMCC, RJFT and EAP.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Case reports provide a valuable learning resource for the scientific community and can indicate areas of interest for future research. They should not be used in isolation to guide treatment choices or public health policy.

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Consent obtained directly from patient(s).

References

  • 1.Stout AP, Murray MR. Hemangiopericytoma: a vascular tumor featuring Zimmermann's pericytes. Ann Surg 1942;116:26–33. 10.1097/00000658-194207000-00004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kim JH, Jung H-W, Kim Y-S, et al. Meningeal hemangiopericytomas: long-term outcome and biological behavior. Surg Neurol 2003;59:47–54. 10.1016/s0090-3019(02)00917-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Liu H-guang, Yang A-chao, Chen N, et al. Hemangiopericytomas in the spine: clinical features, classification, treatment, and long-term follow-up in 26 patients. Neurosurgery 2013;72:16–2. 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182752f50 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Combs SE, Thilmann C, Debus J, et al. Precision radiotherapy for hemangiopericytomas of the central nervous system. Cancer 2005;104:2457–65. 10.1002/cncr.21448 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, et al. The 2016 World Health organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 2016;131:803–20. 10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Louis DN, Perry A, Wesseling P, et al. The 2021 who classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Neuro Oncol 2021;23:1231–51. 10.1093/neuonc/noab106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Brunori A, Cerasoli S, Donati R, et al. Solitary fibrous tumor of the meninges: two new cases and review of the literature. Surg Neurol 1999;51:636–40. 10.1016/S0090-3019(98)00115-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Drazin D, Johnson JPatrick, Shweikeh F, et al. Hemangiopericytoma invading the craniovertebral junction: first reported case and review of the literature. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 2013;4:32–4. 10.4103/0974-8237.121622 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lee C-H, Kim K-J, Jahng T-A, et al. Spinal hemangiopericytoma which needed intraoperative embolization due to unexpected bleeding. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2013;54:253–6. 10.3340/jkns.2013.54.3.253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hernández-Durán S, Sánchez-Jiménez E, Pérez-Berríos J. Hemangiopericytoma of the foramen magnum in a pregnant patient: a case report and literature review. Surg Neurol Int 2014;5:13. 10.4103/2152-7806.125864 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Arai N, Takahashi S, Mami H, et al. A case report of surgical management of hemangiopericytoma at the foramen magnum. Surg Neurol Int 2017;8:151. 10.4103/sni.sni_484_16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kweh BTS, Pham C, McLean C, et al. Metastatic craniocervical hemangiopericytoma presenting with hydrocephalus and papilledema – case review. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 2018;56:186–7. 10.1016/j.jocn.2018.06.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yamaguchi J, Motomura K, Ohka F, et al. Spontaneous tumor regression of intracranial solitary fibrous tumor originating from the medulla oblongata: a case report and literature review. World Neurosurg 2019;130:400–4. 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.07.052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nishii T, Nagashima Y, Nishimura Y, et al. Two cases of solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma with different clinical features according to the world Health organization classification: case report and review of the literature. J Spine Surg 2021;7:532–9. 10.21037/jss-21-83 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Singla R, Singh PK, Khanna G, et al. An institutional review of 10 cases of spinal hemangiopericytoma/solitary fibrous tumor. Neurol India 2020;68:448–53. 10.4103/0028-3886.284374 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Betchen S, Schwartz A, Black C, et al. Intradural hemangiopericytoma of the lumbar spine: case report. Neurosurgery 2002;50:654–7. 10.1097/00006123-200203000-00045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bertalanffy H, Seeger W. The dorsolateral, suboccipital, transcondylar approach to the lower clivus and anterior portion of the craniocervical junction. Neurosurgery 1991;29:815–21. 10.1227/00006123-199112000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Komotar R, Zacharia B, McGovern R, et al. Approaches to anterior and anterolateral foramen magnum lesions: a critical review. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 2010;1:86–99. 10.4103/0974-8237.77672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fountas KN, Kapsalaki E, Kassam M, et al. Management of intracranial meningeal hemangiopericytomas: outcome and experience. Neurosurg Rev 2006;29:145–53. 10.1007/s10143-005-0001-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wu W, Shi J-xin, Cheng H-lin, et al. Hemangiopericytomas in the central nervous system. J Clin Neurosci 2009;16:519–23. 10.1016/j.jocn.2008.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Shirzadi A, Drazin D, Gates M, et al. Surgical management of primary spinal hemangiopericytomas: an institutional case series and review of the literature. Eur Spine J 2013;22:450–9. 10.1007/s00586-012-2626-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bisceglia M, Galliani C, Giannatempo G, et al. Solitary fibrous tumor of the central nervous system: a 15-year literature survey of 220 cases (August 1996-July 2011). Adv Anat Pathol 2011;18:356–92. 10.1097/PAP.0b013e318229c004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yip C-M, Hsu S-S, Liao W-C, et al. Intracranial solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma – a case series. Surg Neurol Int 2020;11:414. 10.25259/SNI_490_2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ghose A, Guha G, Kundu R, et al. Cns hemangiopericytoma: a systematic review of 523 patients. Am J Clin Oncol 2017;40:223–7. 10.1097/COC.0000000000000146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tsugawa T, Mori Y, Kobayashi T, et al. Gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial hemangiopericytoma. J Radiosurg SBRT 2014;3:29–35. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yi X, Xiao D, He Y, et al. Spinal solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma: a clinicopathologic and radiologic analysis of eleven cases. World Neurosurg 2017;104:318–29. 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.05.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cohen-Inbar O, Lee C-C, Mousavi SH, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial hemangiopericytomas: a multicenter study. J Neurosurg 2017;126:744–54. 10.3171/2016.1.JNS152860 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Shin D-W, Kim JH, Chong S, et al. Intracranial solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma: tumor reclassification and assessment of treatment outcome via the 2016 who classification. J Neurooncol 2021;154:171–8. 10.1007/s11060-021-03733-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Xiao J, Xu L, Ding Y, et al. Does post-operative radiotherapy improve the treatment outcomes of intracranial hemangiopericytoma? A retrospective study. BMC Cancer 2021;21:915. 10.1186/s12885-021-08594-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Martin-Broto J, Mondaza-Hernandez JL, Moura DS, et al. A comprehensive review on solitary fibrous tumor: new insights for new horizons. Cancers 2021;13:2913. 10.3390/cancers13122913 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ Case Reports are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES