Stephen M Broski1, Geoffrey B Johnson2,3, Benjamin M Howe2, Mark A Nathan2, Doris E Wenger2, Robert J Spinner4,5, Kimberly K Amrami2,4. 1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Charlton Building North, 1st Floor, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. broski.stephen@mayo.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Charlton Building North, 1st Floor, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 3. Department of Immunology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI for differentiating benign and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (BPNSTs and MPNSTs) and correlate imaging characteristics with histopathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with pathologically proven PNSTs undergoing 18F-FDG PET/CT were retrospectively reviewed. PET/CTs and, if available, MRIs were analyzed, noting multiple imaging characteristics and likely pathology (benign or malignant). RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients with 23 BPNSTs and 20 MPNSTs were analyzed. MPNSTs had higher SUVmax (10.1 ± 1.0, 4.2 ± 0.4, p < 0.0001), metabolic tumor volume (146.5 ± 39.4, 21.7 ± 6.6 cm(3), p = 0.01), total lesion glycolysis (640.7 ± 177.5, 89.9 ± 23.2 cm(3)*g/ml, p = 0.01), and SUVmax/LiverSUVmean (5.3 ± 0.5, 2.0 ± 0.2, p < 0.0001). All lesions with SUVmax < 4.3 were benign. All lesions with SUVmax > 8.1 were malignant. SUVmax cutoff of 6.1 yielded 90.0 % sensitivity and 78.3 % specificity for MPNSTs. SUVmax/LiverSUVmean cutoff of 3.0 yielded 90.0 % sensitivity and 82.6 % specificity. MPNSTs more commonly had heterogeneous FDG activity (p < 0.0001), perilesional edema (p = 0.004), cystic degeneration/necrosis (p = 0.015), and irregular margins (p = 0.004). There was no difference in lesion size, MRI signal characteristics, or enhancement. Expertly interpreted MRI had 62.5-81.3 % sensitivity and 94.1-100.0 % specificity while PET had 90.0-100.0 % sensitivity and 52.2-82.6 % specificity for diagnosing MPNSTs. CONCLUSIONS: FDG PET and MRI play a complementary role in PNST evaluation. Multiple metabolic parameters and MRI imaging characteristics are useful in differentiating BPNSTs from MPNSTs. This underscores the potential critical role of PET/MRI in these patients.
OBJECTIVE: To compare 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI for differentiating benign and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (BPNSTs and MPNSTs) and correlate imaging characteristics with histopathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with pathologically proven PNSTs undergoing 18F-FDG PET/CT were retrospectively reviewed. PET/CTs and, if available, MRIs were analyzed, noting multiple imaging characteristics and likely pathology (benign or malignant). RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients with 23 BPNSTs and 20 MPNSTs were analyzed. MPNSTs had higher SUVmax (10.1 ± 1.0, 4.2 ± 0.4, p < 0.0001), metabolic tumor volume (146.5 ± 39.4, 21.7 ± 6.6 cm(3), p = 0.01), total lesion glycolysis (640.7 ± 177.5, 89.9 ± 23.2 cm(3)*g/ml, p = 0.01), and SUVmax/LiverSUVmean (5.3 ± 0.5, 2.0 ± 0.2, p < 0.0001). All lesions with SUVmax < 4.3 were benign. All lesions with SUVmax > 8.1 were malignant. SUVmax cutoff of 6.1 yielded 90.0 % sensitivity and 78.3 % specificity for MPNSTs. SUVmax/LiverSUVmean cutoff of 3.0 yielded 90.0 % sensitivity and 82.6 % specificity. MPNSTs more commonly had heterogeneous FDG activity (p < 0.0001), perilesional edema (p = 0.004), cystic degeneration/necrosis (p = 0.015), and irregular margins (p = 0.004). There was no difference in lesion size, MRI signal characteristics, or enhancement. Expertly interpreted MRI had 62.5-81.3 % sensitivity and 94.1-100.0 % specificity while PET had 90.0-100.0 % sensitivity and 52.2-82.6 % specificity for diagnosing MPNSTs. CONCLUSIONS: FDG PET and MRI play a complementary role in PNST evaluation. Multiple metabolic parameters and MRI imaging characteristics are useful in differentiating BPNSTs from MPNSTs. This underscores the potential critical role of PET/MRI in these patients.
Authors: B H Van Herendael; S R G Heyman; F M Vanhoenacker; G De Temmerman; J L Bloem; P M Parizel; A M De Schepper Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2006-06-15 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Trinity Urban; Ruth Lim; Vanessa L Merker; Alona Muzikansky; Gordon J Harris; Ara Kassarjian; Miriam A Bredella; Scott R Plotkin Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Johannes Salamon; Simon Veldhoen; Ivayla Apostolova; Peter Bannas; Jin Yamamura; Jochen Herrmann; Reinhard E Friedrich; Gerhard Adam; Victor F Mautner; Thorsten Derlin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J Uthoff; F A De Stefano; K Panzer; B W Darbro; T S Sato; R Khanna; D E Quelle; D K Meyerholz; J Weimer; J C Sieren Journal: J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 3.447
Authors: Christian Philipp Reinert; Martin Ulrich Schuhmann; Benjamin Bender; Isabel Gugel; Christian la Fougère; Jürgen Schäfer; Sergios Gatidis Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-12-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Anton Lavell; Christopher W Jones; Daniel Wong; Peter Counsel; Richard Carey-Smith Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Lennart Well; Johannes Salamon; Michael G Kaul; Said Farschtschi; Jochen Herrmann; Karin I Geier; Christian Hagel; Maximilian Bockhorn; Peter Bannas; Gerhard Adam; Victor F Mautner; Thorsten Derlin Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Maria Schwabe; Stanislav Spiridonov; Elizabeth L Yanik; Jack W Jennings; Travis Hillen; Maria Ponisio; Douglas J McDonald; Farrokh Dehdashti; Cara A Cipriano Journal: Sarcoma Date: 2019-07-01