nach oben

Erschienen in:

03.12.2018 | Musculoskeletal

Conventional MR and diffusion-weighted imaging of musculoskeletal soft tissue malignancy: correlation with histologic grading

verfasst von: Avneesh Chhabra, Oganes Ashikyan, Chenelle Slepicka, Nathan Dettori, Helena Hwang, Alexandra Callan, Rohit R. Sharma, Yin Xi

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 8/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate proven soft tissue musculoskeletal malignancies blinded to their Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer histologic grades to identify the predictive values of conventional MR findings and best fit region of interest (ROI) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements.

Materials and methods

Fifty-one consecutive patients with different histologic grades were evaluated by four readers (R1–4) of different experience levels. Quantitatively, the maximum longitudinal size, tumor to muscle signal intensity ratios, and ADC measurements and, qualitatively, the spatial location of the tumor, its signal alterations, heterogeneity, intralesional hemorrhage or fat, and types of enhancement were assessed. Intraclass correlation, weighted kappa, ANOVA, and Fisher exact tests were used.

Results

There were 22/51 (43%) men (mean age ± SD = 52 ± 16 years) and 29/51 (57%) women (mean age ± SD = 54± 17 years), with the majority of tumors 38/51 (75%) in the lower extremities. Histologic grades were I in 8/51 (16%), II in 17/51 (33%), and III in 26/51 (51%), respectively. The longitudinal dimensions were different among three grades (p = 0.0015), largest with grade I. More central enhancements and deep locations were seen in grade III tumors (p = 0.0191, 0.0246). The ADC mean was significantly lower in grade III than in grade I or II (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.04). The ADC min was significantly lower in grade III than in grade I (p = 0.02). Good to excellent agreements were seen for T1/T2 tumor/muscle ratios, longitudinal dimension, and ADC (ICC = 0.60–0.98).

Conclusion

Longitudinal tumor dimension, central enhancement, and ADC values differentiate histology grades in musculoskeletal soft tissue malignancy with good to excellent inter-reader reliability.

Key Points

• The longitudinal tumor dimension of grade III malignancy is smaller than that of grade I (p < 0.0001), and higher-grade tumors are located deeper (p = 0.0246).

• The ADC mean is significantly lower in grade III than in grade I or grade II (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.04).

• The ADC minimum is significantly lower in grade III than in grade I (p = 0.02).

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Murphey MD, Kransdorf MJ, Smith SE (1999) Imaging of soft tissue neoplasms in the adult: malignant tumors. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 3:39–58. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1080050 CrossRefPubMed

Kransdorf MJ, Bancroft LW, Peterson JJ, Murphey MD, Foster WC, Temple HT (2002) Imaging of fatty tumors: distinction of lipoma and well-differentiated liposarcoma. Radiology 224:99–104. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2241011113

Murphey MD, Gibson MS, Jennings BT, Crespo-Rodríguez AM, Fanburg-Smith J, Gajewski DA (2006) From the archives of the AFIP: imaging of synovial sarcoma with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 26:1543–1565. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.265065084

Walker L, Thompson D, Easton D et al (2006) A prospective study of neurofibromatosis type 1 cancer incidence in the UK. Br J Cancer 95:233–238. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603227 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Coran A, Ortolan P, Attar S et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of lipomatous soft-tissue tumors. In Vivo 31:387–395

Guillou L, Coindre JM, Bonichon F et al (1997) Comparative study of the National Cancer Institute and French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group grading systems in a population of 410 adult patients with soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 15:350–362. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1997.15.1.350 CrossRefPubMed

Oliveira AM, Nascimento AG (2001) Grading in soft tissue tumors: principles and problems. Skeletal Radiol 30:543–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002560100408 CrossRefPubMed

Gielen JL, De Schepper AM, Vanhoenacker F et al (2004) Accuracy of MRI in characterization of soft tissue tumors and tumor-like lesions. A prospective study in 548 patients. Eur Radiol 14:2320–2330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2431-0 CrossRefPubMed

Berquist TH, Ehman RL, King BF, Hodgman CG, Ilstrup DM (1990) Value of MR imaging in differentiating benign from malignant soft-tissue masses: study of 95 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 155:1251–1255. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.155.6.2122675

10.

Vanhoenacker FM, Van Looveren K, Trap K et al (2012) Grading and characterization of soft tissue tumors on magnetic resonance imaging: the value of an expert second opinion report. Insights Imaging 3:131–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-012-0151-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Mesko NW, Wilson RJ, Lawrenz JM et al (2018) Pre-operative evaluation prior to soft tissue sarcoma excision—why can’t we get it right? Eur J Surg Oncol 44:243–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2017.11.001 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Dyrop HB, Vedsted P, Rædkjær M, Safwat A, Keller J (2017) Imaging investigations before referral to a sarcoma center delay the final diagnosis of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Acta Orthop 88:211–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1278113

13.

Gruber L, Gruber H, Luger AK, Glodny B, Henninger B, Loizides A (2017) Diagnostic hierarchy of radiological features in soft tissue tumours and proposition of a simple diagnostic algorithm to estimate malignant potential of an unknown mass. Eur J Radiol 95:102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.07.020

14.

Zhao F, Ahlawat S, Farahani SJ et al (2014) Can MR imaging be used to predict tumor grade in soft-tissue sarcoma? Radiology 272:192–201. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14131871 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Jahed K, Khazai B, Umpierrez M, Subhawong TK, Singer AD (2018) Pitfalls in soft tissue sarcoma imaging: chronic expanding hematomas. Skeletal Radiol 47:119–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2770-y

16.

Ahlawat S, Khandheria P, Subhawong TK, Fayad LM (2015) Differentiation of benign and malignant skeletal lesions with quantitative diffusion weighted MRI at 3T. Eur J Radiol 84:1091–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.02.019 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Singer AD, Pattany PM, Fayad LM, Tresley J, Subhawong TK (2016) Volumetric segmentation of ADC maps and utility of standard deviation as measure of tumor heterogeneity in soft tissue tumors. Clin Imaging 40:386–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.11.017

18.

Sagiyama K, Watanabe Y, Kamei R et al (2017) Multiparametric voxel-based analyses of standardized uptake values and apparent diffusion coefficients of soft-tissue tumours with a positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance system: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 27:5024–5033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4912-y CrossRefPubMed

19.

Ahlawat S, Khandheria P, Del Grande F et al (2016) Interobserver variability of selective region-of-interest measurement protocols for quantitative diffusion weighted imaging in soft tissue masses: comparison with whole tumor volume measurements. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:446–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24994 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Fisher S, Wadhwa V, Manthuruthil C, Cheng J, Chhabra A (2016) Clinical impact of magnetic resonance neurography in patients with brachial plexus neuropathies. Br J Radiol 89:20160503. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160503

21.

Barbieri S, Brönnimann M, Boxler S, Vermathen P, Thoeny HC (2017) Differentiation of prostate cancer lesions with high and with low Gleason score by diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 27:1547–1555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4449-5

22.

Li X, Zhang K, Shi Y, Wang F, Meng X (2016) Correlations between the minimum and mean apparent diffusion coefficient values of hepatocellular carcinoma and tumor grade. J Magn Reson Imaging 44:1442–1447. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25323

23.

Kang Y, Choi SH, Kim YJ et al (2011) Gliomas: histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps with standard- or high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging—correlation with tumor grade. Radiology 261:882–890. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110686 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Teixeira PA, Gay F, Chen B et al (2016) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the initial characterization of non-fatty soft tissue tumors: correlation between T2 signal intensity and ADC values. Skeletal Radiol 45:263–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2302-6 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Pekcevik Y, Kahya MO, Kaya A (2015) Characterization of soft tissue tumors by diffusion-weighted imaging. Iran J Radiol 12:e15478. https://doi.org/10.5812/iranjradiol.15478v2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

van Rijswijk CS, Kunz P, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH, Doornbos J, Bloem JL (2002) Diffusion-weighted MRI in the characterization of soft-tissue tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 15:302–307

27.

Degnan AJ, Chung CY, Shah AJ (2018) Quantitative diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging assessment of chemotherapy treatment response of pediatric osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma malignant bone tumors. Clin Imaging 47:9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.08.003 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Oka K, Yakushiji T, Sato H, Hirai T, Yamashita Y, Mizuta H (2010) The value of diffusion-weighted imaging for monitoring the chemotherapeutic response of osteosarcoma: a comparison between average apparent diffusion coefficient and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient. Skeletal Radiol 39:141–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-009-0830-7

29.

Maeda M, Matsumine A, Kato H et al (2007) Soft-tissue tumors evaluated by line-scan diffusion-weighted imaging: influence of myxoid matrix on the apparent diffusion coefficient. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:1199–1204. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20931 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Subhawong TK, Durand DJ, Thawait GK, Jacobs MA, Fayad LM (2013) Characterization of soft tissue masses: can quantitative diffusion weighted imaging reliably distinguish cysts from solid masses? Skeletal Radiol 42:1583–1592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1703-7

31.

Del Grande F, Ahlawat S, Subhawong T, Fayad LM (2017) Characterization of indeterminate soft tissue masses referred for biopsy: what is the added value of contrast imaging at 3.0 tesla? J Magn Reson Imaging 45:390–400

32.

Corino VDA, Montin E, Messina A et al (2018) Radiomic analysis of soft tissues sarcomas can distinguish intermediate from high-grade lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 47:829–840. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25791 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Conventional MR and diffusion-weighted imaging of musculoskeletal soft tissue malignancy: correlation with histologic grading
verfasst von: Avneesh Chhabra
Oganes Ashikyan
Chenelle Slepicka
Nathan Dettori
Helena Hwang
Alexandra Callan
Rohit R. Sharma
Yin Xi
Publikationsdatum: 03.12.2018
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 8/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5845-9

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Conventional MR and diffusion-weighted imaging of musculoskeletal soft tissue malignancy: correlation with histologic grading

Abstract