Metastatic Hemangiopericytoma Presenting as an Epidural Spinal Cord Lesion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hemangiopericytoma is an aggressive vascular tumour that rarely affects the central nervous system and is even more rarely spinal in presentation. The clinical features of a patient with a recurrent extraspinal hemangiopericytoma presenting with an epidural spinal cord compression by local invasion are described, including a review of the literature on metastatic hemangiopericytoma to the spine. METHODS: A case of a 53-year-old male, with a recurrent extraspinal hemangiopericytoma which metastasized to the thoracic spine five years after detection of the primary tumour is presented. A chart review was conducted where all pertinent history, physical, laboratory, and radiological data were collected. A Pub-Med search using the keyword "hemangiopericytoma" identified all reported cases documenting clinical features, treatment, recurrence and outcome with respect to metastatic hemangiopericytoma to the spine. RESULTS: Nine patients have been reported to have metastatic hemangiopericytoma to the spine. The median patient age was 47 years and there was a slight male preference. An unusual feature of the hemangiopericytoma is the prolonged period, up to 16 years, between the diagnosis of the primary hemangiopericytoma and the metastases to the spine. All patients were treated with a combination of radiation and surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Hemangiopericytomas show a slow clinical evolution with a strong propensity to relapse long after previous treatment and thus, once identified, prolonged follow-up for recurrence is indicated. A close follow-up of these patients is required because of frequent recurrences and delayed metastases even if the primary lesion was well-controlled. Although overall uncommon, hemangiopericytoma should be kept in mind in the differential diagnosis of vascular epidural spinal cord tumours.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".