Received 2023-12-28

Revised 2024-01-14

Accepted 2024-02-24

Long-Term Outcomes and Survival Rates of Patients Undergoing Biopsy Vs. Maximum Safe Resection for Thalamic Lesions: A Short Review on Current Evidence

Ehsan Jangholi 1,2, Hadi Anjomshoaa 3, Parvin Malek Mohammadi 4, Parisa Rostambeygi 5, Afsaneh Halili 6,

Mohammad Rahimi 7, Kamkar Aeinfar 2

1 Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Neurosurgery, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Psychology and Counselling, Farhangian University, P.O.Box 14665-889, Tehran, Iran

4 Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

5 Department of Nursing, Estahban Branch, Islamic Azad University, Estahban, Iran

6 Department of Critical Care Nursing, Isfahan University of Medical Science, Isfahan, Iran

7 Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Mazandaran, Iran


The thalamic lesion is one of the most challenging tumors with significant mortality and morbidities. Current literature highlights the importance of individualized treatment strategies tailored to the specific characteristics of the lesion and the patient. In terms of efficacy, studies have demonstrated that maximal safe resection (MSR) of thalamic lesions can lead to better tumor control, prolonged progression-free survival, and improved overall survival rates compared to biopsy alone. However, the feasibility of achieving MSR is highly dependent on the location, size, and histology of the lesion, as well as the patient’s functional status and overall health. Also, surgical interventions in the thalamus carry inherent risks of neurological deficits, including sensory, motor, and cognitive impairments, depending on the extent of surgical resection and proximity to eloquent neural structures. On the other hand, biopsy remains a valuable diagnostic tool for obtaining tissue samples and establishing a definitive histological diagnosis in cases where MSR is not feasible or poses a high risk of neurological complications. Indeed, biopsy is preferred in patients with advanced age, significant comorbidities, or lesions located in eloquent regions of the thalamus where aggressive surgical resection may result in considerable morbidity. Quality of life (QoL) outcomes, including functional status, symptom burden, and overall well-being, are important endpoints in evaluating the impact of treatment approaches for thalamic lesions on patients’ daily activities. While MSR may offer potential long-term benefits in terms of tumor control and survival outcomes, it may also be associated with a higher risk of neurological deficits and functional impairments that can impact QoL postoperatively. Conversely, biopsy may involve less invasive procedures and shorter recovery times, resulting in better preserved functional status and improved QoL in selected patient populations.

[GMJ.2024;13:e3356] DOI:3356

Keywords: Thalamus; Biopsy; Surgical Resection; Quality of Life; Neurological Deficit


Copyright© 2024, Galen Medical Journal.

This is an open-access article distributed

under the terms of the Creative Commons

Attribution 4.0 International License


Correspondence to:

Kamkar Aeinfar, MD, Department of Neurosurgery, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Telephone Number: 09122482350

Email Address:


Jangholi E, et al.

Thalamic Lesions Treatments: Biopsy Vs. MSR




Thalamic lesions present as a challenging clinical scenario due to the critical role of the thalamus in sensory processing, motor control, and cognition [1]. Various etiologies can lead to thalamic lesions, including tumors, vascular malformations, infections, and ischemic events [2, 3]. The incidence and prevalence of these lesions vary (e.g., 5.8% reported by Choon et al. [4]), which emphasizes the importance of understanding their impact on patient outcomes and quality of life (QoL).

Indeed, accurate characterization of thalamic lesions is essential for selecting optimal treatment strategies and improving patient prognosis [5]. Advanced imaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scans, play a crucial role in identifying lesion characteristics and guiding therapeutic decision-making [6, 7]. Moreover, the need for precise histopathological diagnosis through procedures like biopsy is vital for personalized treatment planning and prognostication [8].

Also, identifying the long-term outcomes and overall survival (OS) rates associated with thalamus lesions is paramount for optimizing patient care and treatment protocols [9]. Previous studies have explored the impact of different treatment modalities, such as biopsy [10] or maximum safe resection (MSR) [11], on patient outcomes. These studies have highlighted the complexities of managing thalamic lesions, including the risks and benefits of each approach [12].

By consolidating current evidence and incorporating findings from previous studies, healthcare professionals can improve diagnostic accuracy, treatment efficacy, and patient outcomes in thalamic lesion management. Hence, in the current study, we aimed to provide a short review of long-term outcomes and OS rates of patients undergoing biopsy vs. MSR for thalamic lesions.

Diagnosis and Treatment Planning

Current literature and previous studies emphasize the challenges associated with accurately characterizing thalamic lesions due to their complex anatomical location and diverse etiologies [13, 14]. Misdiagnosis and/or inadequate characterization of thalamic lesions can lead to suboptimal treatment outcomes and potential complications [15].

Advanced imaging techniques, such as MRI, CT scan, and positron emission tomography (PET) scan, play a crucial role in the precise diagnosis of thalamic lesions by providing detailed information about lesion location, size, morphology, and surrounding structures [16, 17]. These imaging modalities help differentiate various types of thalamic lesions, including tumors, vascular malformations, infections, and ischemic events, accordingly enabling clinicians to tailor treatment approaches [18]. Additionally, incorporating functional imaging modalities, such as functional MRI (fMRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), can provide valuable information about the functional connectivity of the thalamus and aid in treatment planning [19, 20].

Treatment planning for thalamic lesions requires a multidisciplinary approach involving neurosurgeons, neurologists, oncologists, and radiologists to optimize patient care. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of individualized treatment plans based on the specific characteristics of thalamic lesions, the patient’s overall health status, and treatment goals [21-23]. For example, while some thalamic lesions may be amenable to surgical resection, others may require targeted therapies, radiation therapy, or symptom management strategies [24].

The integration of precision medicine approaches, such as molecular profiling and genetic testing, is increasingly being explored in the diagnosis and treatment planning of thalamic lesions [25]. By identifying specific molecular markers or genetic alterations associated with thalamic lesions, clinicians can determine treatment strategies, predict treatment response, and optimize patient outcomes [26, 27].

Importance of Determination of Long-Term Outcomes and OS Rate

Nowadays, evidence indicates the importance of evaluating short-term outcomes and long-term OS and functional outcomes in patients with thalamic lesions [28]. In other words, it is necessary for clinicians to make informed decisions regarding treatment options and to counsel patients and their families effectively.

Long-term follow-up studies have revealed that the prognosis of patients with thalamic lesions varies depending on the underlying etiology, lesion characteristics, treatment modalities, and patient-specific factors [9, 29, 30].

Moreover, assessing long-term functional outcomes in patients with thalamic lesions is crucial for evaluating treatment efficacy, QoL, and rehabilitation needs [31]. Longitudinal studies [32, 33] have demonstrated that factors such as lesion location, size, and the extent of surgical resection can impact functional outcomes, including neurological deficits, cognitive impairment, and QoL. Hence, by monitoring these outcomes over time, healthcare providers can tailor rehabilitation programs, supportive care, and interventions to address specific challenges of patients with thalamic lesions [33].

In addition, incorporating patient-reported outcomes and QoL assessments in long-term follow-up studies provides valuable insights into the psychosocial impact of thalamic lesions on patients and their caregivers [34]. These assessments can help identify unmet needs, symptoms, and concerns that may arise over time and inform supportive care strategies to improve overall well-being and patient satisfaction [35].

Biopsy for Thalamic Lesions


Biopsy for thalamic lesions plays a significant role in diagnosing and managing these complex neuroanatomical abnormalities [36]. The procedure involves the minimally invasive collection of tissue samples from the thalamic region using stereotactic techniques guided by advanced imaging modalities such as MRI and/or CT [37, 38]. The primary purpose of biopsy is to obtain tissue for histopathological examination to differentiate between various pathologies, including tumors, vascular malformations, infections, and inflammatory conditions [39]. Hence, accurate localization of the biopsy site within the thalamus is essential to minimize risks and maximize diagnostic yield [37]. The procedure of thalamus biopsy is typically performed using the insertion of a biopsy needle or catheter through a small burr hole in the skull under local or general anesthesia [40]. Advanced neuroimaging techniques, such as DTI or neuronavigational systems, may be used to accurately target the lesion without serious damage to surrounding structures during the biopsy procedure [38]. Also, depending on the size and location of the thalamic lesion, different biopsy techniques (such as stereotactic, frameless, or endoscopic approaches) may be employed to ensure safe and effective tissue sampling [41].

Furthermore, current literature highlights the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration involving neurosurgeons, neuroradiologists, neuropathologists, and neuro-oncologists in planning and performing thalamus biopsies [42]. Comprehensive preoperative evaluation, including clinical history, neuroimaging studies, and discussion of risks and benefits, is crucial for optimal patient selection and procedural planning [43]. Post-biopsy management involves close monitoring for potential complications such as hemorrhage, infection, or neurological deficits, with prompt histopathological analysis of the tissue samples to guide further treatment strategies [44, 45].

Advantages and Limitations

Biopsy for thalamic lesions offers several advantages and serves as a valuable tool in the diagnosis and management of complex neurological conditions affecting this critical brain region. One of the primary advantages of biopsy for thalamic lesions is its ability to provide a definitive histopathological diagnosis, which is crucial for guiding treatment decisions [46]. Also, it could able to provide treatment strategies, such as surgical resection, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or targeted therapies, to the specific underlying condition, ultimately improving patient outcomes [47].

Furthermore, thalamus biopsy allows for the molecular characterization of lesions, paving the way for personalized medicine approaches in neuro-oncology and neurology [48]. Advanced molecular profiling techniques, such as next-generation sequencing, can identify specific genetic mutations, biomarkers, or therapeutic targets within thalamic lesions, opening up opportunities for targeted therapies and precision medicine interventions [49, 50]. This personalized approach holds promise for improving treatment response rates, minimizing adverse effects, and enhancing overall patient care in the context of thalamic disorders.

On the other hand, thalamus biopsy also presents several limitations and challenges that warrant consideration. One significant limitation is the procedural risks associated with accessing deep-seated thalamic lesions, which may pose technical difficulties and increase the possibility of complications [51]. Careful patient selection, preoperative planning, and vigilant postoperative monitoring are essential to reduce these risks and optimize patient safety during thalamus biopsy procedures [52].

Moreover, the sampling error inherent in biopsy for thalamic lesions can sometimes limit the accuracy of the histopathological diagnosis and subsequent treatment decisions [53]. Due to the heterogeneity of thalamic lesions and the potential for sampling bias, there is a risk of misdiagnosis or incomplete characterization of the underlying pathology based on a single tissue sample. Repeat biopsies or complementary diagnostic modalities, such as advanced neuroimaging, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, or molecular imaging, may be required to enhance diagnostic accuracy and refine treatment strategies in challenging cases [54].

Long-Term Outcomes and Survival Rates After Biopsy

Several retrospective studies [55, 56] have reported varying long-term outcomes and survival rates following biopsy for thalamic lesions, depending on the underlying pathology, patient characteristics, and treatment modalities. For instance, in cases of thalamic tumors, such as gliomas, lymphomas, or metastases, survival outcomes have been correlated with factors such as tumor grade, extent of resection, molecular subtypes, and response to adjuvant therapies [57]. In contrast, high-grade gliomas within the thalamus are associated with poorer prognosis and shorter OS than lower-grade tumors or non-neoplastic lesions [58], highlighting the importance of accurate histopathological diagnosis and personalized treatment strategies in optimizing long-term outcomes.

Moreover, studies have demonstrated that the location and size of thalamic lesions can impact long-term OS and functional outcomes following biopsy and treatment. Lesions involving critical thalamic nuclei or white matter tracts may result in significant neurological deficits, cognitive impairment, or disability, influencing patients’ QoL and long-term prognosis [58-60].

Additionally, advancements in neuroimaging, neurosurgical techniques, and adjuvant therapies have contributed to improved long-term OS and outcomes for patients undergoing biopsy for thalamic lesions [61]. The integration of stereotactic navigation, intraoperative imaging, neuronavigational, and awake craniotomy approaches has enhanced the precision and safety of thalamus biopsies, minimized the risk of complications, and improved the extent of tumor resection [62]. Furthermore, the development of targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and molecularly guided treatment regimens has expanded treatment options for patients with thalamic tumors, offering new avenues for personalized medicine and improved long-term OS [63].


Surgical Techniques

The MSR refers to the extent of tumor removal that can be achieved while minimizing the risk of postoperative neurological deficits and preserving vital structures within the thalamus [64]. Surgical planning for thalamic lesions involves a multidisciplinary approach that integrates advanced neuroimaging, functional mapping, and intraoperative monitoring to delineate tumor boundaries, identify eloquent brain regions, and navigate complex anatomical structures [65]. Actually, the goal of MSR is to optimize oncological outcomes by achieving the maximum feasible extent of tumor removal while preserving critical neural pathways and functional domains to minimize the risk of morbidity and optimize patient outcomes [66].

Various surgical techniques have been utilized to facilitate MSR for thalamic lesions, e.g., intraoperative imaging techniques such as intraoperative MRI or CT scans provide real-time feedback to neurosurgeons, enabling them to assess the extent of tumor resection and adjust their surgical approach accordingly to achieve the desired goal of MSR [41, 67].

Also, neuronavigational systems enhance surgical precision by providing real-time 3D visualization of tumor margins, adjacent structures, and critical landmarks, guiding the neurosurgeon in achieving MSR while minimizing the risk of postoperative neurological deficits [68].

Advantages and Limitations

One of the primary advantages of MSR for thalamic lesions is the potential for improved oncological outcomes [66]. Indeed, studies have suggested that achieving a greater extent of tumor removal is associated with more prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and OS rates in patients with thalamic lesions [69, 70]. By diligently removing as much tumor mass as safely possible, neurosurgeons aim to reduce the likelihood of tumor recurrence and improve patient outcomes in the long term. Furthermore, maximal tumor resection can help alleviate mass effect-related symptoms, such as intracranial pressure elevation, leading to better symptomatic relief and QoL for patients [71].

Another significant advantage of MSR is the potential to spare critical neurological functions within the thalamus. By utilizing advanced neuroimaging techniques, intraoperative monitoring, and functional mapping, neurosurgeons can identify and preserve essential sensory, motor, and cognitive pathways within the thalamus while removing the tumor [72].

However, MSR for thalamic lesions presents certain limitations and challenges. One of the primary limitations is the risk of damaging critical neural structures during surgery, which can result in postoperative neurological deficits, such as sensory or motor impairments, speech difficulties, or cognitive changes [73]. Balancing the imperative to achieve maximal tumor removal with the need to preserve vital brain regions requires precise surgical planning, expertise, and intraoperative decision-making to minimize the risk of complications and optimize patient outcomes [74]. Furthermore, the location of thalamic lesions can pose technical challenges for achieving MSR, mainly when lesions are centrally located or involve deep structures within the thalamus [75]. Accessing and navigating these regions safely can be complex and may necessitate innovative surgical approaches, such as endoscopic or minimally invasive techniques, to optimize the chances of successful tumor removal while minimizing the risk of surgical morbidity [76].

Long-Term Outcomes and Survival Rates After MSR

The thalamus, a deep-seated and functionally diverse brain structure, poses unique challenges for surgical resection due to its intricate anatomical connections and proximity to vital neural pathways [77]. Despite these challenges, previous research has suggested that maximal tumor removal can lead to symptomatic relief, tumor control, and potentially improved long-term PFS and OS rates in select cases of thalamic lesions [78].

Studies have shown that successful resection of thalamic lesions, such as tumors or vascular malformations, can result in improved QoL, reduced risk of recurrence, and enhanced OS for patients [79, 80]. By navigating the intricate anatomy of the thalamus with precision and employing innovative surgical strategies, neurosurgeons strive to achieve therapeutic efficacy while minimizing the risk of postoperative complications and neurological deficits [81].

Nevertheless, factors such as lesion size, location, histology, and pre-existing neurological deficits can influence treatment outcomes and patient prognosis following thalamic lesion resection [82-84].

Factors Influencing Treatment Decisions

The decision-making process regarding the choice between biopsy and MSR for thalamic lesions is multifaceted and influenced by various factors elucidated in current literature and previous studies. Understanding these factors is crucial for neurosurgeons and healthcare providers in developing individualized treatment plans that optimize patient outcomes and QoL in managing thalamic lesions [85].

One of the key factors influencing treatment decisions for thalamic lesions is the location and size of the lesion within the thalamus [86]. For example, Cao et al. [87] revealed that the extent of total and subtotal resection was less when the thalamic tumor infiltrated the cerebral peduncles. Indeed, partial resection or biopsy may be a better choice for cases in which it is difficult to resect the tumor totally or sub-totally intraoperatively [87].

Histological characteristics and tumor biology also play a significant role in treatment decision-making for thalamic lesions [88, 89]. Lesions with aggressive histology, high-grade malignancies, or molecular features predicting rapid growth and dissemination may necessitate a more aggressive surgical approach with MSR to achieve optimal tumor control and improve long-term PFS and OS rates [89, 90]. Conversely, lesions with indolent histologies or low-grade tumors may be amenable to less extensive interventions like biopsy for diagnostic confirmation and ongoing surveillance [91].

Patient-specific factors, including age, overall health status, functional status, and pre-existing comorbidities (e.g., cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, etc.), are critical considerations in determining the optimal treatment approach for thalamic lesions [92-94]. Older patients or those with significant medical comorbidities may not tolerate extensive surgical procedures like MSR may benefit more from a less invasive approach, e.g., biopsy, to obtain diagnostic information and guide further management [93]. Conversely, younger and healthier patients with good functional status may be candidates for aggressive surgical interventions to achieve maximal tumor resection and optimize long-term outcomes [95].

Neuroimaging characteristics, such as lesion morphology, extent of mass effect, surrounding edema, and proximity to eloquent structures, also factor into treatment decision-making for thalamic lesions [96]. Advanced imaging modalities, including functional MRI, DTI, and intraoperative neuronavigation, provide valuable information for surgical planning and determining the feasibility of MSR while preserving critical neural pathways [97].

Current Guidelines for Thalamic Lesion Management

Based on current literature and previous studies, a multidisciplinary approach involving neurosurgeons, neurologists, radiation oncologists, and other specialists is recommended to optimize outcomes and individualize treatment strategies for thalamic lesions [98]. In Figure-1, we suggested a simple but informative approach for the management of thalamic lesions. The management of thalamic lesions typically begins with a comprehensive evaluation, including detailed neuroimaging studies such as MRI and possibly functional imaging modalities like DTI and fMRI [99]. Consequently, it could characterize the size, location, and relationship of the lesion to critical neural structures within the thalamus, guiding treatment planning and decision-making [100].

Surgical intervention, either biopsy or MSR, is indicated based on factors such as lesion characteristics, patient age, functional status, comorbidities, and treatment goals [101]. Indeed, MSR is generally preferred for thalamic lesions that are accessible and non-eloquent, with the aim of achieving maximal tumor control while preserving neurological function [74]. In contrast, biopsy may considered for lesions in critical or eloquent areas of the thalamus, cases where the risks of surgery outweigh the benefits of resection, or for diagnostic purposes in lesions with uncertain pathology [93].

For lesions that are not amenable to surgical resection, and in cases of recurrence or residual disease following surgery, adjuvant therapies (such as radiation therapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapies, etc.) may recommended [102, 103]. The choice of adjuvant treatment modalities is influenced by factors, e.g., the histology of the lesion, molecular markers, patient-specific characteristics, and treatment goals [104].

Also, in cases where surgical intervention is not feasible or appropriate, a palliative approach focusing on symptom management, supportive care, and improving QoL may be implemented [105]. Multidisciplinary teams, including palliative care specialists, pain management experts, and social workers can provide holistic support for patients with thalamic lesions and their families, addressing physical, emotional, and psychosocial needs throughout the disease course [106, 107]. Overall, regarding current studies, we recommended the management of thalamic lesions in some steps as follows:

1. Clinical Assessment:

- Obtain a detailed history and perform a thorough neurological examination.

- Consider the presenting symptoms such as motor deficits, sensory abnormalities, cognitive impairments, and any associated signs.

2. Neuroimaging:

- Utilize MRI scans with contrast to visualize the thalamic lesion and its characteristics.

- Assess the location, size, enhancement pattern, and surrounding structures.

3. Biopsy vs. MSR:

- Determine the need for a biopsy to confirm diagnosis and guide further management.

- Consider the potential benefits of surgical resection for lesions amenable to safe removal.

4. Multidisciplinary Team Discussion:

- Consult with neurosurgeons, neuro-oncologists, neuroradiologists, and neuropathologists to comprehensively evaluate treatment options.

5. Treatment Options:

- Consider treatment modalities such as surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or a combination based on the type of thalamic lesion.

6. Monitoring and Follow-up:

- Establish a follow-up schedule to monitor treatment response, neurological status, and possible complications.

- Perform periodic imaging to assess for recurrence or treatment-related changes.

7. Symptom Management:

- Address symptoms such as pain, seizures, cognitive deficits, and motor impairments through medications, physical therapy, and supportive care.

8. Rehabilitation and Support:

- Offer rehabilitation services to improve functional outcomes and QoL post-treatment.

- Provide psychological support for patients and their families to cope with the emotional impact of thalamic lesions.

9. Long-Term Monitoring:

- Continuously monitor for long-term effects of treatment, recurrence of lesions, and overall neurological status.

- Adjust the management plan as needed based on the patient’s response and disease progression.

Future Directions

Future directions and areas for further research in thalamic lesion management hold promise for advancing our understanding and improving treatment outcomes for patients with these complex neurological conditions. Regarding previous studies, several key areas warrant exploration and investigation to enhance the precision and effectiveness of thalamic lesion management strategies. A critical area for further research involves advancing our knowledge of thalamic lesions’ molecular and genetic underpinnings to identify novel therapeutic targets and develop targeted therapies [108]. Understanding the molecular pathways involved in thalamic lesion development, progression, and response to treatment could pave the way for personalized and precision medicine approaches that tailor interventions based on the specific molecular profile of the lesion and the individual patient. Another crucial area for future research is the refinement of imaging modalities and techniques for accurate diagnosis, characterization, and monitoring of thalamic lesions. Ongoing advancements in neuroimaging, such as advanced MRI sequences, PET imaging, and molecular imaging probes, can enhance our ability to non-invasively assess thalamic lesions, characterize their biological features, and monitor treatment response over time [108, 109]. Exploring innovative treatment modalities for thalamic lesions, including targeted drug therapies, immunotherapies, gene therapies, and minimally invasive surgical techniques, represents a promising avenue for future research [110].

Investigating the efficacy and safety of emerging treatment approaches in preclinical models and clinical trials could offer new therapeutic options for patients with thalamic lesions, particularly those with challenging-to-treat or recurrent lesions. Furthermore, investigating the role of multidisciplinary care models and integrated supportive services in optimizing outcomes for patients with thalamic lesions is essential. Research focusing on the impact of comprehensive care pathways, including neuro-rehabilitation, palliative care, psychological support, and caregiver education, could provide valuable insights into holistic approaches that address the multifaceted needs of patients with thalamic lesions and improve their overall QoL.


Previous evidence provides the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of biopsy and MSR for thalamic lesions. However, understanding the benefits and limitations of each approach is crucial for personalized treatment planning and improved patient outcomes. Indeed, implications for clinical practice include the need for a collaborative, evidence-based approach involving a multidisciplinary team and shared decision-making with patients. Hence, updated information about current guidelines, technological advancements, and research findings are essential for providing high-quality care in the management of thalamic lesions.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Also, one of the authors of the article (E.J) is the deputy editor of the journal. Based on the journal policy, he was completely excluded from any review process of this article, as well as the final decision.

Thalamic Lesions Treatments: Biopsy Vs. MSR

Jangholi E, et al.



Jangholi E, et al.

Thalamic Lesions Treatments: Biopsy Vs. MSR



Thalamic Lesions Treatments: Biopsy Vs. MSR

Jangholi E, et al.



Jangholi E, et al.

Thalamic Lesions Treatments: Biopsy Vs. MSR



Figure 1. A recommended flowchart for the management of thalamic’ lesions.

Thalamic Lesions Treatments: Biopsy Vs. MSR

Jangholi E, et al.



Jangholi E, et al.

Thalamic Lesions Treatments: Biopsy Vs. MSR




  1. Wolff M, Morceau S, Folkard R, Martin-Cortecero J, Groh A. A thalamic bridge from sensory perception to cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021:120:222-35.
  2. Mahajan KR, Nakamura K, Cohen JA, Trapp BD, Ontaneda D. Intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms of thalamic pathology in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2020;88(1):81-92.
  3. Mehndiratta A, Treaba CA, Barletta V, Herranz E, Ouellette R, Sloane JA, et al. Characterization of thalamic lesions and their correlates in multiple sclerosis by ultra-high-field MRI. Mult Scler. 2021;27(5):674-83.
  4. Choon XY, Al-Nuaimy Y, Lee JM, Audrey C, Fong SL, Lim KS, et al. Prevalence of seizures in thalamic brain tumour, a single centre experience and a meta-analysis. Brain Disorders. 2023;11:100083.
  5. Schaller-Paule MA, Oeckel AM, Schüre JR, Keil F, Hattingen E, Foerch C, et al. Isolated thalamic stroke–analysis of clinical characteristics and asymmetry of lesion distribution in a retrospective cohort study. Neurol Res Pract. 2021; 3: 49.
  6. Mohammad SS, Paget SP, Dale RC. Current therapies and therapeutic decision making for childhood‐onset movement disorders. Mov Disord. 2019;34(5):637-56.
  7. Prasad JA, Abela AR, Chudasama Y. Midline thalamic reuniens lesions improve executive behaviors. Neuroscience. 2017:345:77-88.
  8. Giacino J, Fins JJ, Machado A, Schiff ND. Central thalamic deep brain stimulation to promote recovery from chronic posttraumatic minimally conscious state: challenges and opportunities. Neuromodulation. 2012;15(4):339-49.
  9. Palmisciano P, El Ahmadieh TY, Haider AS, Bin Alamer O, Robertson FC, Plitt AR, et al. Thalamic gliomas in adults: a systematic review of clinical characteristics, treatment strategies, and survival outcomes. J Neurooncol. 2021;155(3):215-24.
  10. Kelly PJ. Stereotactic biopsy and resection of thalamic astrocytomas. Neurosurgery. 1989;25(2):185-94.
  11. Lim J, Park Y, Ahn JW, Hwang SJ, Kwon H, Sung KS, et al. Maximal surgical resection and adjuvant surgical technique to prolong the survival of adult patients with thalamic glioblastoma. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0244325.
  12. Merenzon M, Levy AS, Bhatia S, Eatz T, Morell AA, Daggubati L, et al. Surgical approaches to thalamic gliomas: a systematic review. World Neurosurg. 2023:171:25-34.
  13. Herrero MT, Barcia C, Navarro J. Functional anatomy of thalamus and basal ganglia. Childs Nerv Syst. 2002;18(8):386-404.
  14. del Mar Sáez de Ocariz M, Nader JA, Santos JA, Bautista M. Thalamic vascular lesions: Risk factors and clinical course for infarcts and hemorrhages. Stroke. 1996;27(9):1530-6.
  15. Hegde AN, Mohan S, Lath N, Lim CT. Differential diagnosis for bilateral abnormalities of the basal ganglia and thalamus. Radiographics. 2011;31(1):5-30.
  16. Gravbrot N, Saranathan M, Pouratian N, Kasoff WS. Advanced imaging and direct targeting of the motor thalamus and dentato-rubro-thalamic tract for tremor: a systematic review. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2020;98(4):220-40.
  17. Shah BR, Lehman VT, Kaufmann TJ, Blezek D, Waugh J, Imphean D, et al. Advanced MRI techniques for transcranial high intensity focused ultrasound targeting. Brain. 2020;143(9):2664-72.
  18. Catapano JS, Rumalla K, Srinivasan VM, Benner D, Winkler EA, Lawrence PM, et al. A taxonomy for deep cerebral cavernous malformations: subtypes of thalamic lesions. J Neurosurg. 2023;139(6):1681-96.
  19. Gupta A, Shah A, Young RJ, Holodny AI. Imaging of brain tumors: functional magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2010;20(3):379-400.
  20. Wiegell MR, Tuch DS, Larsson HB, Wedeen VJ. Automatic segmentation of thalamic nuclei from diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage. 2003;19(2 Pt 1):391-401.
  21. Beneš 3rd V, Zápotocký M, Libý P, Táborský J, Blažková Jr J, Blažková Sr J, et al. Survival and functional outcomes in paediatric thalamic and thalamopeduncular low grade gliomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2022;164(6):1459-72.
  22. Ilcus C, Silaghi H, Georgescu CE, Georgiu C, Ciurea AI, Nicoara SD, et al. Molecular pathology and targeted therapies for personalized management of central nervous system germinoma. J Pers Med. 2021;11(7):661.
  23. Renedo D, Ferraro F, Johnson AR, Argañaraz R, Giovannini S, Zabala JP, et al. Thalamic tumors in children: case series from our institution and literature review. Childs Nerv Syst. 2021;37(2):457-63.
  24. Greenberger JS, Cassady JR, Levene MB. Radiation therapy of thalamic, midbrain and brain stem gliomas. Radiology. 1977;122(2):463-8.
  25. Phillips JW, Schulmann A, Hara E, Winnubst J, Liu C, Valakh V, et al. A repeated molecular architecture across thalamic pathways. Nat Neurosci. 2019;22(11):1925-35.
  26. Nomura M, Mukasa A, Nagae G, Yamamoto S, Tatsuno K, Ueda H, et al. Distinct molecular profile of diffuse cerebellar gliomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2017;134(6):941-56.
  27. Komori T. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system: the major points of revision. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2017;57(7):301-11.
  28. Niu X, Wang T, Zhou X, Yang Y, Wang X, Zhang H, et al. Surgical treatment and survival outcome of patients with adult thalamic glioma: a single institution experience of 8 years. J Neurooncol. 2020;147(2):377-86.
  29. Miyai I, Suzuki T, Kang J, Volpe BT. Improved functional outcome in patients with hemorrhagic stroke in putamen and thalamus compared with those with stroke restricted to the putamen or thalamus. Stroke. 2000;31(6):1365-9.
  30. Rocca MA, Mesaros S, Pagani E, Sormani MP, Comi G, Filippi M. Thalamic damage and long-term progression of disability in multiple sclerosis. Radiology. 2010;257(2):463-9.
  31. Dalrymple-Alford JC, Harland B, Loukavenko EA, Perry B, Mercer S, Collings DA, et al. Anterior thalamic nuclei lesions and recovery of function: Relevance to cognitive thalamus. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2015:54:145-60.
  32. Krägeloh-Mann I, Helber A, Mader I, Staudt M, Wolff M, Groenendaal F, et al. Bilateral lesions of thalamus and basal ganglia: origin and outcome. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2002;44(7):477-84.
  33. Hwang K, Bruss J, Tranel D, Boes AD. Network localization of executive function deficits in patients with focal thalamic lesions. J Cogn Neurosci. 2020;32(12):2303-19.
  34. Saberi A, Abdolalizadeh A, Mohammadi E, Nahayati MA, Bagheri H, Shekarchi B, et al. Thalamic shape abnormalities in patients with multiple sclerosis-related fatigue. Neuroreport. 2021;32(6):438-42.
  35. Chakrabarty M, Pflieger EM, Cardillo E, Chatterjee A. Effects of chronic brain injury on quality of life: a study in patients with left-or right-sided lesion. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2019;2(1):100031.
  36. Qin F, Huang Z, Dong Q, Xu X, Lu T, Chen J, et al. Stereotactic biopsy for lesions in brainstem and deep brain: a single-center experience of 72 cases. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2021;54(8):e11335.
  37. Vinicius de Padua VA, Care MM, Leach JL. Incidental Thalamic Lesions Identified on Brain MRI in Pediatric and Young Adult Patients: Imaging Features and Natural History. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2024;45(2):211-7.
  38. Van Cauter S, Severino M, Ammendola R, Van Berkel B, Vavro H, Van den Hauwe L, et al. Bilateral lesions of the basal ganglia and thalami (central grey matter)—pictorial review. Neuroradiology. 2020;62(12):1565-605.
  39. Kozyrev DA, Soleman J, Tsering D, Keating RF, Hersh DS, Boop FA, et al. Pediatric thalamic incidentalomas: an international retrospective multicenter study. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2021;29(2):141-9.
  40. Spennato P, Ruggiero C, Mirone G, Imperato A, Parlato RS, Cinalli G. Endoscopic needle biopsy of thalamic tumors. Childs Nerv Syst. 2020;36(11):2835-40.
  41. Sai Kiran NA, Thakar S, Dadlani R, Mohan D, Furtado SV, Ghosal N, et al. Surgical management of thalamic gliomas: case selection, technical considerations, and review of literature. Neurosurg Rev. 2013;36(3):383-93.
  42. Baroncini M, Vinchon M, Minéo JF, Pichon F, Francke JP, Dhellemmes P. Surgical resection of thalamic tumors in children: approaches and clinical results. Childs Nerv Syst. 2007;23(7):753-60.
  43. Baker C, Crevelt J, Whipple N, Bollo RJ, Cheshier S. Treatment of a symptomatic thalamic pilocytic astrocytoma with reservoir placement and laser interstitial thermal therapy: illustrative case. J Neurosurg Case Lessons. 2022;3(11):CASE21363.
  44. Riche M, Amelot A, Peyre M, Capelle L, Carpentier A, Mathon B. Complications after frame-based stereotactic brain biopsy: a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev. 2021;44(1):301-7.
  45. Elsiagy RY, Mansour MH, Elmaghraby MS. Frame-Based Stereotactic Surgery in Thalamic Lesions. Al-Azhar International Medical Journal. 2022;3(10):29-34.
  46. Murayi R, Borghei-Razavi H, Barnett GH, Mohammadi AM. Laser interstitial thermal therapy in the treatment of thalamic brain tumors: a case series. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2020;19(6):641-50.
  47. Ferroli P, Restelli F, Bertolini G, Monti E, Falco J, Bonomo G, et al. Are Thalamic Intrinsic Lesions Operable No-Man’s Land Revisited by the Analysis of a Large Retrospective, Mono-Institutional, Cohort. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(2):361.
  48. Samara A, Berry B, Ghannam M. Thalamic aphasia secondary to glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Neurosci. 2020:74:234-8.
  49. Enomoto T, Aoki M, Hamasaki M, Abe H, Nonaka M, Inoue T, et al. Midline glioma in adults: clinicopathological, genetic, and epigenetic analysis. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2020;60(3):136-46.
  50. Mosaab A, El-Ayadi M, Khorshed EN, Amer N, Refaat A, El-Beltagy M, et al. Histone H3K27M mutation overrides histological grading in pediatric gliomas. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):8368.
  51. Marenco-Hillembrand L, Prevatt C, Suarez-Meade P, Ruiz-Garcia H, Quinones-Hinojosa A, Chaichana KL. Minimally invasive surgical outcomes for deep-seated brain lesions treated with different tubular retraction systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2020:143:537-45.
  52. Menon G, Nair S, Sudhir J, Rao BR, Krishnakumar K. Bilateral thalamic lesions. Br J Neurosurg. 2010;24(5):566-71.
  53. Nishihara M, Takeda N, Harada T, Kidoguchi K, Tatsumi S, Tanaka K, et al. Diagnostic yield and morbidity by neuronavigation-guided frameless stereotactic biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging and by frame-based computed tomography-guided stereotactic biopsy. Surg Neurol Int. 2014;5(Suppl 8):S421-6.
  54. Wong TT, Chen HH, Liang ML, Hsieh KL, Yang YS, Ho DM, et al. Clinical considerations and surgical approaches for low-grade gliomas in deep hemispheric locations: thalamic lesions. Childs Nerv Syst. 2016;32(10):1895-906.
  55. Jones EL, Jones TS, Pearlman NW, Gao D, Stovall R, Gajdos C, et al. Long-term follow-up and survival of patients following a recurrence of melanoma after a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy result. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(5):456-61.
  56. Eissa MK, Elbeltagy M, Abou-Rahma H, Negm HM, Mansour AS, Elsisi YB. Role of Surgery in the Prognosis of Pediatric Thalamic Tumors. Menoufia Medical Journal. 2024;37(1):6.
  57. Tang J, Ma Z, Luo S, Zhang Y, Jia G, Zhang J. The germinomas arising from the basal ganglia and thalamus. Childs Nerv Syst. 2008;24(3):303-6.
  58. Wu B, Tang C, Wang Y, Li Z, Hu S, Hua W, et al. High-grade thalamic gliomas: microsurgical treatment and prognosis analysis. J Clin Neurosci. 2018:49:56-61.
  59. Zhang P, Wang X, Ji N, Xie J, Han J, Ren X, et al. Clinical, radiological, and pathological features of 33 adult unilateral thalamic gliomas. World J Surg Oncol. 2016:14:78.
  60. Esquenazi Y, Moussazadeh N, Link TW, Hovinga KE, Reiner AS, DiStefano NM, et al. Thalamic glioblastoma: clinical presentation, management strategies, and outcomes. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(1):76-85.
  61. Jing L, Qian Z, Gao Q, Sun R, Zhen Z, Wang G, et al. Diffuse midline glioma treated with epigenetic agent-based immunotherapy. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2023;8(1):23.
  62. Cinalli G, Aguirre DT, Mirone G, Ruggiero C, Cascone D, Quaglietta L, et al. Surgical treatment of thalamic tumors in children. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2018;21(3):247-57.
  63. Pan E. Potential Molecular Targets in the Treatment of Patients with CNS Tumors. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(15):3807.
  64. Serra C, Türe H, Yaltırık CK, Harput MV, Türe U. Microneurosurgical removal of thalamic lesions: surgical results and considerations from a large, single-surgeon consecutive series. J Neurosurg. 2020;1(aop):1-11.
  65. Serra C, Türe H, Fırat Z, Staartjes VE, Yaltırık CK, Ekinci G, et al. Microsurgical management of midbrain gliomas: surgical results and long-term outcome in a large, single-surgeon, consecutive series. J Neurosurg. 2023;140(1):104-15.
  66. Segar DJ, Lak AM, Lee S, Harary M, Chavakula V, Lauro P, et al. Lesion location and lesion creation affect outcomes after focused ultrasound thalamotomy. Brain. 2021;144(10):3089-100.
  67. Gagliardo C, Cannella R, Filorizzo G, Toia P, Salvaggio G, Collura G, et al. Preoperative imaging findings in patients undergoing transcranial magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):2524.
  68. Kamboh UA, Manzoor M, Fayyaz HA, Sami Z, Mehboob M, Ahmad M. Efficacy of Electromagnetic Based Neuronavigation-Guided Biopsy of Supratentorial Lesions of the Brain at Jinnah Hospital Lahore. Pakistan Journal Of Neurological Surgery. 2023;27(2):269-75.
  69. Qinglong G, Wei H, Biwu W, Zhiqi L, Yikui L, Pin S, et al. Lateral or medial surgical approaches for thalamic gliomas resection?. World Neurosurg. 2020:136:e90-e107.
  70. Dorfer C, Czech T, Gojo J, Hosmann A, Peyrl A, Azizi AA, et al. Infiltrative gliomas of the thalamus in children: the role of surgery in the era of H3 K27M mutant midline gliomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021;163(7):2025-35.
  71. Gupta M, Chan TM, Santiago-Dieppa DR, Yekula A, Sanchez CE, Elster JD, et al. Robot-assisted stereotactic biopsy of pediatric brainstem and thalamic lesions. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2020;27(3):317-24.
  72. El Beltagy MA, Atteya MM. Benefits of endoscope-assisted microsurgery in the management of pediatric brain tumors. Neurosurg Focus. 2021;50(1):E7.
  73. Sinai A, Nassar M, Eran A, Constantinescu M, Zaaroor M, Sprecher E, et al. Magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor: a 5-year single-center experience. J Neurosurg. 2019;133(2):417-24.
  74. Steinberg GK, Chang SD, Gewirtz RJ, Lopez JR. Microsurgical resection of brainstem, thalamic, and basal ganglia angiographically occult vascular malformations. Neurosurgery. 2000;46(2):260-70.
  75. Özek MM, Türe U. Surgical approach to thalamic tumors. Childs Nerv Syst. 2002;18(8):450-6.
  76. Tian KB, Zheng JJ, Ma JP, Hao SY, Wang L, Zhang LW, et al. Clinical course of untreated thalamic cavernous malformations: hemorrhage risk and neurological outcomes. J Neurosurg. 2017;127(3):480-91.
  77. Koga T, Shin M, Maruyama K, Terahara A, Saito N. Long-term outcomes of stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations in the thalamus. Neurosurgery. 2010;67(2):398-403.
  78. Ohye C, Shibazaki T, Zhang J, Andou Y. Thalamic lesions produced by gamma thalamotomy for movement disorders. J Neurosurg. 2002;97(5 Suppl):600-6.
  79. Krahulik D, Blazek F, Halaj M, Hrabalek L, Stepanova E, Pavelka Z, et al. Surgical Treatment of Paediatric Thalamic Gliomas—Single-Centre Experience. Brain Sci. 2024;14(2):141.
  80. Potts MB, Young WL, Lawton MT, UCSF Brain AVM Study Project. Deep arteriovenous malformations in the basal ganglia, thalamus, and insula: microsurgical management, techniques, and results. Neurosurgery. 2013;73(3):417-29.
  81. Bilginer B, Narin F, Işıkay I, Oguz KK, Söylemezoglu F, Akalan N. Thalamic tumors in children. Childs Nerv Syst. 2014;30(9):1493-8.
  82. Bernstein M, Hoffman HJ, Halliday WC, Hendrick EB, Humphreys RP. Thalamic tumors in children: long-term follow-up and treatment guidelines. J Neurosurg. 1984;61(4):649-56.
  83. Nishio S, Morioka T, Suzuki S, Takeshita I, Fukui M. Thalamic gliomas: a clinicopathologic analysis of 20 cases with reference to patient age. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1997;139(4):336-42.
  84. Alluhaybi AA, Altuhaini KS, Soualmi L, Alotaibi F, Al Banyan A, Ahmad M, et al. Thalamic Tumors in a Pediatric Population: Surgical Outcomes and Utilization of High-Definition Fiber Tractography and the Fiber Tracking Technique. Cureus. 2022;14(3):e23611.
  85. Perry BA, Mendez JC, Mitchell AS. Cortico‐thalamocortical interactions for learning, memory and decision‐making. J Physiol. 2023;601(1):25-35.
  86. Fritsch M, Rangus I, Nolte CH. Thalamic Aphasia: a Review. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2022;22(12):855-65.
  87. Cao L, Li C, Zhang Y, Gui S. Surgical resection of unilateral thalamic tumors in adults: approaches and outcomes. BMC Neurol. 2015:15:229.
  88. Puget S, Crimmins DW, Garnett MR, Grill J, Oliveira R, Boddaert N, et al. Thalamic tumors in children: a reappraisal. J Neurosurg. 2007;106(5 Suppl):354-62.
  89. Kramm CM, Butenhoff S, Rausche U, Warmuth-Metz M, Kortmann RD, Pietsch T, et al. Thalamic high-grade gliomas in children: a distinct clinical subset?. Neuro Oncol. 2011;13(6):680-9.
  90. Valdueza JM, Lohmann F, Dammann O, Hagel C, Eckert B, Freckmann N. Analysis of 20 primarily surgically treated chiasmatic/hypothalamic pilocytic astrocytomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1994;126(1):44-50.
  91. Steiger HJ, Götz C, Schmid-Elsaesser R, Stummer W. Thalamic astrocytomas: surgical anatomy and results of a pilot series using maximum microsurgical removal. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2000;142(12):1327-36.
  92. Sánchez Fernández I, Takeoka M, Tas E, Peters JM, Prabhu SP, Stannard KM, et al. Early thalamic lesions in patients with sleep-potentiated epileptiform activity. Neurology. 2012;78(22):1721-7.
  93. De Witte L, Brouns R, Kavadias D, Engelborghs S, De Deyn PP, Mariën P. Cognitive, affective and behavioural disturbances following vascular thalamic lesions: a review. Cortex. 2011;47(3):273-319.
  94. Pezzini A, Del Zotto E, Archetti S, Albertini A, Gasparotti R, Magoni M, et al. Thalamic infarcts in young adults: relationship between clinical-topographic features and pathogenesis. Eur Neurol. 2002;47(1):30-6.
  95. Frank F, Fabrizi AP, Gaist G, Frank-Ricci R, Piazzi M, Spagnolli F. Stereotaxy and Thalamic Masses. Appl Neurophysiol. 1987;50(1-6):243-7.
  96. Renard D, Castelnovo G, Campello C, Bouly S, Le Floch A, Thouvenot E, et al. Thalamic lesions: a radiological review. Behav Neurol. 2014:2014:154631.
  97. Shahriari M, Sotirchos ES, Newsome SD, Yousem DM. MOGAD: How It Differs From and Resembles Other Neuroinflammatory Disorders. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216(4):1031-9.
  98. Chen XY, Wang Q, Wang X, Wong KS. Clinical features of thalamic stroke. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2017;19(2):5.
  99. Madhugiri VS, Teo MK, Westbroek EM, Chang SD, Marks MP, Do HM, et al. Multimodal management of arteriovenous malformations of the basal ganglia and thalamus: Factors affecting obliteration and outcome. J Neurosurg. 2018;131(2):410-19.
  100. Tuttle C, Boto J, Martin S, Barnaure I, Korchi AM, Scheffler M, et al. Neuroimaging of acute and chronic unilateral and bilateral thalamic lesions. Insights Imaging. 2019;10(1):24.
  101. Callovini GM, Bolognini A, Gammone V, Petrella G. First-line stereotactic treatment of thalamic abscesses: report of three cases and review of the literature. Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2009;70(3):143-8.
  102. Konovalov AN, ShU K. Surgical approaches to thalamic tumors. Zh Vopr Neirokhir Im N N Burdenko. 2011;75(1):4-11.
  103. Grigsby PW, Thomas PR, Schwartz HG, Fineberg B. Irradiation of primary thalamic and brainstem tumors in a pediatric population. A 33‐year experience Cancer. 1987;60(12):2901-6.
  104. Packer RJ. Chemotherapy: low-grade gliomas of the hypothalamus and thalamus. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2000;32(5):259-63.
  105. Smith HS, Pilitsis JG. Neuromodulation and palliative medicine. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2014;31(2):211-9.
  106. Brizzi KT. Short-term Palliative Care for Advanced Neurologic Disease. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(8):e2015247.
  107. Day J, Gillespie DC, Rooney AG, Bulbeck HJ, Zienius K, Boele F, et al. Neurocognitive deficits and neurocognitive rehabilitation in adult brain tumors. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2016;18(5):22.
  108. Steinbok P, Gopalakrishnan CV, Hengel AR, Vitali AM, Poskitt K, Hawkins C, et al. Pediatric thalamic tumors in the MRI era: a Canadian perspective. Childs Nerv Syst. 2016;32(2):269-80.
  109. Vagvala S, Guenette JP, Jaimes C, Huang RY. Imaging diagnosis and treatment selection for brain tumors in the era of molecular therapeutics. Cancer Imaging. 2022;22(1):19.
  110. Brokinkel B, Yavuz M, Warneke N, Brentrup A, Hess K, Bleimüller C, et al. Endoscopic management of a low-grade thalamic glioma: a safe alternative to open microsurgery?. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017;159(7):1237-40.

Thalamic Lesions Treatments: Biopsy Vs. MSR

Jangholi E, et al.



Jangholi E, et al.

Thalamic Lesions Treatments: Biopsy Vs. MSR



Thalamic Lesions Treatments: Biopsy Vs. MSR

Jangholi E, et al.



Jangholi E, et al.

Thalamic Lesions Treatments: Biopsy Vs. MSR