English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The role of diagnostic biopsy in diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) remains in question. Distinguishing radiographically between DIPG and other pontine tumors with more favorable prognosis and different therapy is critically important. METHODS Cases submitted to the International DIPG registry with histopathologic data were analyzed. Central imaging review was performed by two neuro-radiologists; all cases with imaging features or histopathology suggestive of alternative diagnoses were re-reviewed. Imaging features suggestive of alternative diagnoses included non-pontine origin, &amp;lt;50% pontine involvement (without typical DIPG pattern on follow-up), focally exophytic morphology, sharply-defined margins, or marked diffusion restriction throughout. RESULTS Among 297 patients with pathology from biopsy and/or autopsy available, 27 (9%) had histologic diagnoses not consistent with DIPG, commonly embryonal tumors (n=9) and pilocytic astrocytomas (n=11). 163 patients had diagnostic MRI available for central neuroimaging review. Among 81 patients classified as characteristic of DIPG, 80 (99%) had histopathology consistent with DIPG (diffuse midline glioma, H3K27M-mutant, glioblastoma, anaplastic astrocytoma, diffuse astrocytoma). Among 63 patients classified as likely DIPG, but with unusual imaging features, 59 (94%) had histopathology consistent with DIPG. 19 patients had imaging features suggestive of another diagnosis, including 13 with non-pontine tumor origin; the remaining 6 all had histopathology not consistent with DIPG. Association between central imaging review and histopathology was significant (p&amp;lt;0.001). CONCLUSIONS The important role and accuracy of central neuroimaging review in diagnosing or excluding DIPG is demonstrated. In patients with pontine tumors for which DIPG is felt unlikely radiographically, biopsy may be considered to guide diagnosis and treatment.

DIPG-46. NON-DIPG PATIENTS ENROLLED IN THE INTERNATIONAL DIPG REGISTRY: HISTOPATHOLOGIC EVALUATION OF CENTRAL NEURO-IMAGING REVIEW