Metastatic involvement of sacral nerve roots from uterine carcinoma: a case report.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Metastatic involvement of peripheral nerves is considered common in carcinoma of the head and neck with perineural invasion. It is also possible that perineural and endoneural invasion occur in presacral local recurrence. Little is reported about metastasis in pelvic lesions including sacral nerve roots. PURPOSE: We describe the clinical presentation and diagnosis of metastatic involvement of sacral nerve roots retrogradely from uterine carcinoma, and its implication for spine surgeons, along with a brief review of literature. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A case report of a patient with metastatic lesions in S1 and S2 nerve roots originating from uterine adenocarcinoma is presented. METHODS: A 39-year-old woman with history of uterine cancer presented with persistent severe low back pain, intractable radicular pain, and neurological deficit in the right lower extremity. She had undergone radical hysterectomy for uterine adenocarcinoma 4 years ago followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed abnormal swelling of the S1 and S2 nerve roots along with a soft-tissue mass in the retroperitoneal space. RESULTS: The patient underwent surgical rhizotomy and histology of the roots revealed metastatic tumor in the dorsal root ganglion. The patient had good pain relief, she died of metastatic disease 3 years later. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being uncommon, sacral nerve root metastasis should be considered in some patients with history of cancer of pelvic organs including the uterus. MR images were of little value in differentiating a carcinomatous lesion from a benign lesion.

[Clinical results of LINAC-based stereotactic radiosurgery for pituitary adenoma].

PURPOSE: We retrospectively evaluated our clinical results of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for pituitary adenoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1995 and 2000, 13 patients were treated with SRS for pituitary adenoma. In all cases, the tumors had already been surgically resected. The adenomas were functional in 5 and non-functional in 8 patients. The median follow-up period was 30 months. SRS was performed with the use of a dedicated stereotactic 10-MV linear accelerator (LINAC). The median dose to the tumor margin was 15 Gy. The dose to the optic apparatus was limited to less than 8 Gy. RESULTS: MR images of 12 patients revealed tumor CR in one case and PR in 9 cases; in the remaining two patients, tumor size decreased by less than 50%. There was no recognizable regrowth of any of the tumors. In two of four GH-secreting adenomas, hormonal overproduction normalized, while the other two showed reduced hormonal production. One PRL-secreting adenoma did not respond. Reduction of visual acuity and field was seen in one patient. This patient also had a brain infarction. None of the patients developed brain radionecrosis or radiation-induced hypopituitarism. CONCLUSION: Although further studies based on greater numbers of cases and longer follow-up periods are needed, our results suggest that SRS seems to be a safe, effective treatment for pituitary adenoma.