Subependymomas: clinicopathologic study of 14 tumors, including comparative MIB-1 immunohistochemical analysis with other ependymal neoplasms.

BACKGROUND

Subependymomas are uncommonly encountered ependymal tumors, which are important to distinguish from ordinary ependymomas because of their generally better prognosis.

OBJECTIVE

To review the clinicopathologic features and MIB-1 labeling indices (marker of cell proliferation) of 14 subependymomas.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 14 subependymomas encountered in a tertiary care setting.

RESULTS

Fourteen ependymomas presenting in 8 men and 6 women between the ages of 18 and 78 years (mean, 53.6 years) comprise the study group. The most common clinical presentations included ataxia (n = 4), dizziness/vertigo (n = 3), nausea/vomiting (n = 3), headaches (n = 3), and incidental finding at autopsy (n = 2). Tumor locations included fourth ventricle (n = 7), lateral ventricle (n = 4), third ventricle (n = 2), and thoracic spinal cord (n = 1). Eight patients underwent gross total resection, and 4 had subtotal resection. Tumors were characterized by clustering of cell nuclei arranged against a fibrillary background. Focal cystic degeneration was seen in 10 tumors, hemosiderin deposition in 8 tumors, sclerotic vessels in 8 tumors, calcifications in 5 tumors, and focal nuclear pleomorphism in 2 tumors. Mitotic figures, vascular endothelial proliferation, and necrosis were not seen in any of these tumors. Cell proliferation marker MIB-1 labeling indices (percentage of positive staining tumor cells) ranged from 0 to 1.4 (mean, 0.3). In comparison, 13 myxopapillary ependymomas had labeling indices ranging from 0 to 5.5 (mean, 1.1). Thirty-nine low-grade ependymomas had MIB-1 labeling indices of 0.1 to 5.4 (mean, 1.1). Fourteen anaplastic/malignant ependymomas had MIB-1 labeling indices ranging from 0.4 to 34.0 (mean, 12.8). One subependymoma was treated with radiation therapy. Six patients were alive with no evidence of tumor at a mean follow-up of 94.4 months. Two patients were alive with residual tumor (follow-up of 4 and 53 months). Two patients died with tumor at 0.67 and 43.4 months. One patient was lost to follow-up, 1 is a recent case, and 2 were incidental findings at autopsy. None of the patients developed tumor recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Subependymomas are generally low-grade lesions, as evidenced by their benign clinical course and low MIB-1 labeling indices. Compared with other ependymal tumors, subependymomas have the lowest rate of cell proliferation as evidenced by MIB-1 immunostaining.