MATERIAL and METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed the patient archives from January 2017?December 2019. The records of 572 patients discussed in these meetings were examined. A total of 8 patients having a challenge in differential diagnosis were detected.

RESULTS: This study has included 8 cases in which neurology?neurosurgery?neuroradiology clinicians have difficulty in differentiating CVE and MBT. In the present study, three patients were evaluated with a preliminary diagnosis of hemorrhagic CVE in the emergency room. Since degradation products of hemoglobin have prevented advanced imaging methods to diagnose in two patients, these patients have been followed closely. The correct diagnosis could be made through the scan performed during control follow-ups The preliminary diagnosis of seven patients was CVE, but they received the MBT diagnosis during the follow-up. One patient was thought to have MBT initially; however, he/she was diagnosed with CVE after an advanced examination and close follow-up.

CONCLUSION: Despite developing medical imaging methods and diagnostic studies, there are still some difficulties in making differential diagnosis of CVEs and MBTs. In some patients, further examination and imaging methods may be needed such as magnetic resonance imaging-spectroscopy (MRI-S), perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (Per-MRI), digital substratioangiography (DSA). Despite all these neuroradiological examinations and multidiciplinary evaluation, distinction between CVE and MBT may be difficult, and medicolegal problems may be encountered. Keywords : Brain neoplasms, Cerebrovascular diseases, Differential diagnosis, Malignant