Evidence Hub

Myxoid Glioneuronal Tumours with PDGFRA p.K385 Mutations Causing Hydrocephalus and Successfully Treated with Neuroendoscopic Surgery: A Case Report and Literature Review

Shoko Wakisaka, Y. Nagata, Toshiki Fukuoka, F. Ohka, Yoshinari Satake, K. Takeuchi, R. Saito

NMC Case Report Journal, 2025

18 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Myxoid glioneuronal tumour (MGNT) is a new WHO classification of brain tumours and is defined as tumours with PDGFRA p.K385 mutations. MGNT has a predilection for the septum pellucidum, their clinical features have not yet been clarified because only a few reports exist. In this report, we present the case of a patient with an MGNT that was suitable for endoscopic resection. We discuss the clinical characteristics of MGNTs discovered during a literature review. A 19-year-old female presented with a worsening headache and a disturbance of consciousness. Head MRI revealed a mass lesion in the septum pellucidum and severe obstructive hydrocephalus. She underwent neuroendscopic surgery under general anaesthesia, and near total resection was achieved. Her symptoms improved immediately after surgery, and she was discharged without any morbidities. Pathological examination and genetic testing confirmed the diagnosis of an MGNT. A literature review revealed that 7 of 18 MGNTs developed in the septum pellucidum. Three patients had disseminated lesions at initial diagnosis, and one showed dissemination during the follow-up period. Among the 14 patients who underwent tumour resection surgery, 3 experienced recurrence or regrowth and required additional treatments. All 18 patients were alive at the last follow-up. An MGNT is a tumour that predominantly affects young people and is currently considered to have a good prognosis. However, close postoperative observation is needed because an…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 18 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free