Conventional and functional MR imaging of peripheral nerve sheath tumors: Initial experience

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Volumn 35, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 1615-1620

  Demehri, Shadpour ^a   Belzberg, A ^b   Blakeley, J ^c   Fayad, L M ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BENIGN PERIPHERAL NERVE SHEATH TUMOR; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MALIGNANT PERIPHERAL NERVE SHEATH TUMOR; NERVE SHEATH TUMOR; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PERIPHERAL NERVE TUMOR; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR VOLUME; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER CURVE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NERVE SHEATH NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84907327276     PISSN: 01956108     EISSN: 1936959X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3910     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Kransdorf MJ. Benign soft-tissue tumors in a large referral population: distribution of specific diagnoses by age, sex, and location. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:395-402
2. Ducatman BS, Scheithauer BW, Piepgras DG, et al. Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: a clinicopathologic study of 120 cases. Cancer 1986;57:2006-21 (Pubitemid 16113778)
3. Evans DG, Baser ME, McGaughran J, et al. Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors in neurofibromatosis 1. J Med Genet 2002;39:311-14 (Pubitemid 34526349)
4. Bhargava R, Parham DM, Lasater OE, et al. MR imaging differentiation of benign and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: use of the target sign. Pediatr Radiol 1997;27:124-29 (Pubitemid 27101774)
5. Kehrer-Sawatzki H, Kluwe L, Fünsterer C, et al. Extensively high load of internal tumors determined by whole body MRI scanning in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 and a non-LCR-mediated 2-Mb deletion in 17q11.2. Hum Genet 2005;116:466-75 (Pubitemid 41166777)
6. Koşucu P, Ahmetoĝlu A, Cobanoĝlu U, et al. Mesenteric involvement in neurofibromatosis type 1: CT and MRI findings in two cases. Abdom Imaging 2003;28:822-26 (Pubitemid 37351751)
7. Wasa J, Nishida Y, Tsukushi S, et al. MRI features in the differentiation of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors and neurofibromas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:1568-74
8. Frassica FJ, Khanna JA, McCarthy EF. The role ofMRimaging in soft tissue tumor evaluation: perspective of the orthopedic oncologist and musculoskeletal pathologist. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2000;8:915-27
9. Beert E, Brems H, Daniëls B, et al. Atypical neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis type 1 are premalignant tumors. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2011;50:1021-32
10. Friedrich RE, Gawad K, Derlin T, et al. Surgery for atypical plexiform neurofibromas of the trunk in NF1 with high standardised uptake value (SUV) in positron-emission tomography (PET) expressing podoplanin: a long-term follow-up. Anticancer Res 2012;32:4547-51
11. Meany H, Dombi E, Reynolds J, et al. 18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) evaluation of nodular lesions in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 and plexiform neurofibromas (PN) or malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST). Pediatr Blood Cancer 2013;60:59-64
12. Papp DF, Khanna AJ, McCarthy EF, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of soft-tissue tumors: determinate and indeterminate lesions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89(suppl 3):103-15 (Pubitemid 47556794)
13. Fayad LM, Jacobs MA, Wang X, et al. Musculoskeletal tumors: how to use anatomic, functional, and metabolic MR techniques. Radiology 2012;265:340-56
14. Maeda M, Matsumine A, Kato H, et al. Soft-tissue tumors evaluated by line-scan diffusion-weighted imaging: influence of myxoid matrix on the apparent diffusion coefficient. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:1199-204 (Pubitemid 46870278)
15. Van Rijswijk CS, Geirnaerdt MJ, Hogendoorn PC, et al. Soft-tissue tumors: value of static and dynamic gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging in prediction of malignancy. Radiology 2004;233:493-502 (Pubitemid 39423810)
16. Hawighorst H, Libicher M, Knopp MV, et al. Evaluation of angiogenesis and perfusion of bone marrow lesions: role of semiquantitative and quantitative dynamic MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:286-94 (Pubitemid 29463111)
17. Perkins NJ, Schisterman EF. The inconsistency of "optimal" cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:670-75
18. Rydholm A, Berg N. Size, site and clinical incidence of lipoma: factors in the differential diagnosis of lipoma and sarcoma. Acta Orthop Scand 1983;54:929-34 (Pubitemid 14210701)
19. Ahlawat S, Blakeley J, Montgomery E, et al. Schwannoma in neurofibromatosis type 1: a pitfall for detecting malignancy by metabolic imaging. Skeletal Radiol 2013;42:1317-22
20. Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametricMRimaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 2013;269:482-92
21. Fayad LM, Mugera C, Soldatos T, et al. Technical innovation in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal tumors: an MR angiographic sequence using a sparse kspace sampling strategy. Skeletal Radiol 2013;42:993-1000