AJDRAJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

Publication Preview: Published October 15, 2009
This Article
Free to Access This article has been Unlocked
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Petersen, T.A.
Right arrow Articles by Hart, B.L.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Petersen, T.A.
Right arrow Articles by Hart, B.L.

BRAIN

Familial versus Sporadic Cavernous Malformations: Differences in Developmental Venous Anomaly Association and Lesion Phenotype

T.A. Petersen, L.A. Morrison, R.M. Schrader and B.L. Hart

From the Departments of Pediatrics (T.A.P.), Radiology (B.L.H.), and Neurology (L.A.M.) and the General Clinical Research Center (R.M.S.), University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Please address correspondence to Blaine L. Hart, MD, Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC10 5530, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001; e-mail: bhart{at}salud.unm.edu

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: CCMs are commonly associated with DVAs, but the incidence of association in familial CCM is unknown. The presence of a DVA significantly complicates surgical management of a CCM because of the risk of compromised venous drainage. In this investigation, we compared the incidence of a DVA in the presence of a CCM in sporadic and familial CCM cases comprising predominantly familial CCM with the Southwestern US common Hispanic mutation (or Q455X mutation) of CCM1.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of 112 patients identified with CCM. MR imaging review included the presence or absence of a DVA and number, location, size, and signal-intensity characteristics of CCMs. Record review included patient and family history and documented genetic mutations. Statistical analysis was performed by using the Fisher exact and 2-sample t tests.

RESULTS: Eighty-one cases were familial, 18 were sporadic, and 13 were indeterminate. There were a total of 2212 CCMs: 2176, 21, and 15 in the familial, sporadic, and indeterminate groups, respectively. There was a close association of CCM and DVA (an apparent combined vascular lesion) in 8 of 18 (44%) sporadic cases and only 1 possible such association in the familial cases. The difference was highly statistically significant (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS: Familial CCMs are unlikely to be associated with DVAs, and sporadic CCMs have a high rate of association with DVA. This difference in imaging features of familial and sporadic CCMs suggests the possibility of a different developmental mechanism.

Abbreviations: SWI, susceptibility-weighted imaging