Ecchordosis Physaliphora Masquerading as Chordoma: A Case Report
CASE REPORT
Ecchordosis Physaliphora Masquerading as Chordoma:
A Case Report
LN Ang1, TY Kew1, CJ Toh2, MR Isa3
1 Department of Radiology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia
2 Department of Neurosurgery, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia
3 Department of Pathology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia
Correspondence: Dr LN Ang, Department of Radiology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia. Email: lee.nah1982@gmail.com
Submitted: 5 Apr 2019; Accepted: 3 Jul 2019.
Contributors: All authors had full access to the data, contributed to the study, drafted the manuscript, critically revised the manuscript for
important intellectual content, approved the final version for publication, and take responsibility for its accuracy and integrity.
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Funding/Support: This case report received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Ethics Approval: The patient was treated in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from patient for the
examinations.
INTRODUCTION
A notochordal rest is a remnant of the embryonic
skeletal column and later forms the nucleus pulposus.[1]
It is considered ectopic when located outside the nucleus
pulposus.1 Ecchordosis physaliphora and chordoma are
examples of an ectopic notochord remnant.[2]
Although ecchordosis physaliphora and chordoma
share similar biological behaviour, they are two
separate entities that require different management.[3]
Differentiation between them is essential. Ecchordosis
physaliphora is benign and self-limiting and does not
require surgical intervention.[4] In contrast, chordoma is
malignant, exhibits local aggressive behaviour and bony
destruction, and requires radical resection as well as
radiotherapy.[4]
Ecchordosis physaliphora is a classic benign intradural
lesion attached to the clivus by an osseous stalk. Patients
are often asymptomatic. Chordoma is a malignant
counterpart that exhibits aggressive features and is
located extradurally. Intradural chordoma is rare and
reported in only few cases. Patients with chordoma often
have cranial nerve palsy at the time of presentation and have a dismal prognosis despite surgical intervention
and radiotherapy.[3]
CASE REPORT
A 43-year-old lady presented with intermittent
non-specific bitemporal and occipital headache for
the past 10 years. The pain was not severe and was
relieved by rest and sleep. Cranial nerves were intact
and neurological examination was unremarkable. A
diagnosis was made of tension headache. Nonetheless
computed tomography (CT) was performed to exclude
any sinister pathology and to reassure the patient.
Incidental findings on CT imaging revealed a retroclival
bony defect with no visible stalk. The defect was
confined to the retroclival region without extension to
adjacent structures, i.e., sphenoid sinus anteriorly, sellar
structures superiorly or bilateral internal carotid arteries
laterally (Figure 1).
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain was
performed to further characterise the lesion. This lesion
returned homogeneous hypointensity on T1-weighted
images and hyperintensity on T2-weighted images without contrast enhancement post-gadolinium
administration. It was located in the upper two thirds of
the retroclival region with protrusion into the pre-pontine
cistern (Figure 2). CT and MRI findings were suggestive
of ecchordosis physaliphora although other differential
diagnoses such as cystic chordoma, metastasis, or
abscess were included in the report. The presence of
normal blood parameters in the absence of fever and no
history of primary malignancy excluded the possibility
of metastasis or abscess.
In view of the differential diagnoses and the possibility
of a benign or malignant lesion, the patient was
counselled for transsphenoidal clival biopsy to confirm
the diagnosis. Initial histopathology was consistent with chordoma. Nonetheless due to discrepancy between the
intraoperative and pathological findings, the neurosurgeon
asked the pathologist to re-review the tissue sample.
In the neurosurgeon’s opinion, the bony hard lesion
was not consistent with chordoma, instead favouring
a congenital lesion such as ecchordosis physaliphora.
After re-evaluation, the final histopathological diagnosis
was amended accordingly (Figure 3). In addition, the
pathologist emphasised the importance of radiological
findings in differentiating ecchordosis physaliphora
from chordoma due to the challenges of histological
interpretation.
Postoperatively the patient developed cerebral spinal
fluid leakage and two further endoscopic repairs were required during the same admission. She was discharged
home well after the second procedure and remained
asymptomatic at her last neurosurgical follow-up.
DISCUSSION
Notochords are phylogenetically considered to be the
primitive skeleton of vertebrates. As development of the axial skeleton progresses, the notochord becomes
the nucleus pulposus.[3] Intriguingly, at the extreme poles
of the axial skeleton (dorsum sellae and sacrococcygeal
region), the outcome of notochord development is more
variable and correlates with the presence of aberrant
notochord elements in later life.[3]
Notochordal remnants were reported in 2% of random
autopsies by Rippert in 1894, who named these lesions
as ecchordosis.[5] Ecchordosis physaliphora is a benign
ectopic notochordal remnant along the midline of the
craniospinal axis.[6] Ecchordosis physaliphora is a rare
small benign hamartomatous lesion located intradurally,
and shows a slow-growing pattern.[3] It is attached to
the clivus by a small pedicle and associated with bony
defect at the retroclivus.[3] The malignant counterpart
is chordoma, arising extradurally and associated with
extensive bony erosion.[6] There are some rare cases of
extraosseous intradural chordoma and this subtype is
believed to have a better prognosis than the classic one.[5]
Patients with ecchordosis physaliphora are asymptomatic
due to its small size and indolent growth rate.[3] There
are exceptional rare cases of symptomatic ecchordosis
physaliphora where it has expanded to an unusually
large size and manifests as a mass effect by compressing
adjacent structures.[6] An atypical extratumoural bleed
may also be encountered occasionally.[6] Our patient
reported only intermittent non-specific headache that
had not worsened over the years. She had no other signs
of increased intracranial pressure, cranial nerve palsy, or
neurological deficit. These symptoms may be attributed
to the disease itself but and are most likely secondary to
tension headache rather than symptoms of an ecchordosis
physaliphora.
Unlike ecchordosis physaliphora, which is typically
retroclival in origin, chordoma is located centrally within
the clivus.[7] It causes extensive lytic bony destruction
and intratumoural calcification.[7] Most individuals
present with symptoms such as headache and cranial
nerve palsies.[3] These symptoms are due to local bony
destruction and mass effect on the adjacent brainstem
and cranial nerves.[3]
Although chordoma has a lower prevalence compared
with ecchordosis physaliphora, their differentiation is of
great clinical concern as patients require very different
management strategies.[7] The former, due to its aggressive
nature, often necessitates radical resection and adjuvant
radiotherapy, whereas the latter rarely requires surgery.[7] As our radiological report included either diagnosis
of ecchordosis physaliphora or chordoma, the patient
underwent clival biopsy to exclude the later.
Although both ecchordosis physaliphora and chordoma
share a similar notochordal origin, histopathologic
differentiation between the two is challenging.[4]
Nishiguchi et al[4] subjected 38 patients initially diagnosed
histopathologically with chordoma to be re-evaluated by
two separate radiologists and two separate pathologists.
In the consensus, five patients were found to have a benign
notochord cell tumour. They are difficult to distinguish
based on histopathology, immunohistochemistry and
ultrastructural studies, instead relying on the infiltrating
growth of chordomas.[7] A few authors have proposed
differentiation on the basis of hypocellularity, sparse
pleomorphism and absence of mitoses, but these are not
definitive criteria.[8] In our patient, the final diagnosis of
ecchordosis physaliphora was made instead of chordoma
due to the absence of cellular proliferation, tissue
destruction, or necrosis inflammation. Nonetheless
the pathologist also emphasised the importance of
radiological findings that were equally important when
distinguishing the two due to the dilemma in histological
interpretation. What role does imaging contribute to this
diagnostic conundrum?
CT and MRI remain important when assessing a clival
lesion. CT poses limitations in detecting ecchordosis
physaliphora in view of the often small size of the lesion
and beam hardening artefacts in the posterior fossa.[6]
Nonetheless if an osseous stalk is identified connecting
to the clival notochord remnant, it is considered a
morphological hallmark of ecchordosis physaliphora.[3]
Chordoma, on the contrary, will show extensive bony
destruction and tumoural calcifications.[1] Although CT
findings in our patient showed no visible osseous stalk
or tumoural calcification, the MRI findings were typical
and consistent with ecchordosis physaliphora. The lesion
was hypointense on T1-weighted images, hyperintense
on T2-weighted images, and there was no visible contrast
enhancement in post-gadolinium study. Nonetheless due
to the rarity of this congenital lesion, most radiologists
including ours are not familiar with its appearance and
signal characteristics.
Based on all cases reported in the literature, ecchordosis
physaliphora (including symptomatic lesion)
demonstrates MRI signal characteristics similar to those
seen in our patient. The presence or absence of contrast
enhancement has been repeatedly shown to be helpful in determining and distinguishing ecchordosis physaliphora
from chordoma.[6] Ecchordosis physaliphora does not
demonstrate enhancement in post-contrast images,
whereas chordoma usually enhances considerably
in post-gadolinium study.[9] This reflects the usual
histopathological features of some degree of vascular
proliferation in the latter, as opposed to scant vascular
networks in the former.[4] Hence, lack of enhancement
is a very useful criterion for differentiating ecchordosis
physaliphora from chordoma or other malignant tumour
including rare atypical intradural chordoma.[5]
CONCLUSION
In view of the difficulties in differentiating ecchordosis
physaliphora and chordoma based on histology alone,
precise knowledge of neuroradiological (specifically
magnetic resonance) imaging characteristics is especially
important in making the diagnosis. This case report
emphasises the significance of observing the absence
of contrast enhancement, with T1 and T2 lengthening
similar to that of cerebral spinal fluid, and retroclival
location as classic features in clinching the diagnosis
of ecchordosis physaliphora. In doing so, the patient
is spared an unnecessary surgical procedure, with the
attendant risks of potential complications.
REFERENCES
1. Srinivasan A, Goyal M, Kingstone M. Case 133: Ecchordosis
physaliphora. Radiology. 2008;247:585-8. Crossref
2. Adamek D, Malec M, Grabska N, Krygowska-Wajs A, Gałązka K.
Ecchordosis physaliphora — a case report and a review of
notochord-derived lesions. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2014;45:169-
73. Crossref
3. Yuh SJ, Woulfe J, Corsten MJ, Carrau RL, Prevedello DM,
Kassam AB. Diagnostic imaging dilemma of a clival lesion and
its clinical management implications. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base.
2014;75:177-82. Crossref
4. Nishiguchi T, Mochizuki K, Ohsawa M, Inoue T, Kageyama K,
Suzuki A, et al. Differentiating benign notochordal cell tumors from
chordomas: radiographic features on MRI, CT, and tomography.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:644-50. Crossref
5. Mehnert F, Beschorner R, Küker W, Hahn U, Nägele T. Retroclival
ecchordosis physaliphora: MR imaging and review of the literature.
AJR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25:1851-5.
6. Rotondo M, Natale M, Mirone G, Cirillo M, Conforti R, Scuotto A.
A rare symptomatic presentation of ecchordosis physaliphora:
neuroradiological and surgical management. J Neurol Neurosurg
Psychiatry. 2007;78:647-9. Crossref
7. Alkan O, Yildirim T, Kizilkiliç O, Tan M, Cekinmez M. A case
of ecchordosis physaliphora presenting with an intratumoral
hemorrhage. Turk Neurosurg. 2009;19:293-6.
8. Park HH, Lee KS, Ahn SJ, Suh SH, Hong CK. Ecchordosis
physaliphora: typical and atypical radiologic features. Neurosurg
Rev. 2017;40:87-94. Crossref
9. Krisht KM, Palmer CA, Osborn AG, Couldwell WT. Giant
ecchordosis physaliphora in an adolescent girl: case report. J
Neurosurg Pediatr. 2013;12:328-33. Crossref