OBJECTIVE: The authors describe magnetic resonance (MR) findings in eight patients with histologically confirmed focal myositis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In each patient, axial TSE T1-weighted and fast short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) images were obtained using a 1.5-T MR scanner. Three patients also underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MR examination using a GE T1-weighted sequence. The following features were evaluated: anatomical distribution, extent of the involvement, signal intensity characteristics, dynamic enhancement pattern and outcome at follow-up examinations. RESULTS: Seven of eight lesions were located in the lower extremities, one of eight in the arm; four of eight involved part of a muscle, two of eight diffusely involved a muscle and two of eight showed multifocal involvement of two or more muscles. All lesions were hyperintense on fast-STIR images: the hyperintensity was homogeneous in six of eight and inhomogeneous in two of eight. On T1-weighted unenhanced images, all lesions but two appeared isointense or slightly hypointense in comparison to normal muscles; two lesions showed a slight hyperintensity. Dynamic enhancement pattern corresponded to the type usually seen in benign soft tissue lesions. All lesions disappeared. CONCLUSION: Focal myositis is an uncommon pseudotumour which should be considered in the differential diagnosis of muscular masses and myopathies.
OBJECTIVE: The authors describe magnetic resonance (MR) findings in eight patients with histologically confirmed focal myositis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In each patient, axial TSE T1-weighted and fast short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) images were obtained using a 1.5-T MR scanner. Three patients also underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MR examination using a GE T1-weighted sequence. The following features were evaluated: anatomical distribution, extent of the involvement, signal intensity characteristics, dynamic enhancement pattern and outcome at follow-up examinations. RESULTS: Seven of eight lesions were located in the lower extremities, one of eight in the arm; four of eight involved part of a muscle, two of eight diffusely involved a muscle and two of eight showed multifocal involvement of two or more muscles. All lesions were hyperintense on fast-STIR images: the hyperintensity was homogeneous in six of eight and inhomogeneous in two of eight. On T1-weighted unenhanced images, all lesions but two appeared isointense or slightly hypointense in comparison to normal muscles; two lesions showed a slight hyperintensity. Dynamic enhancement pattern corresponded to the type usually seen in benign soft tissue lesions. All lesions disappeared. CONCLUSION:Focal myositis is an uncommon pseudotumour which should be considered in the differential diagnosis of muscular masses and myopathies.
Authors: K L Verstraete; H J Van der Woude; P C Hogendoorn; Y De-Deene; M Kunnen; J L Bloem Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1996 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.813