Stephen M Broski1, Andrew L Folpe2, Doris E Wenger3. 1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. wenger.doris@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the CT and MR imaging features of phosphaturic mesenchymal tumors (PMTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: With IRB approval, our institutional radiology/pathology database was reviewed for pathologically-proven PMTs. CT and MRI examinations were reviewed in consensus noting several imaging features, and if available, comparative molecular imaging tests were analyzed. RESULTS: We identified 39 patients (21 male, 18 females) with 40 PMTs [mean age, 52.9 ± 14.9 years (range, 14-78)], including 20 bone and 20 soft tissue lesions. Mean maximal lesion diameter was 3.4 ± 2.0 cm (range, 1.1-9.8). 12/18 primary bone lesions (66.6%) were osteolytic and 15/20 (75.0%) had a narrow zone of transition. Internal matrix was present in 18/32 (56.3%) lesions. PMTs were most commonly T1 isointense (31/37, 83.8%), T2 hyperintense (14/36, 38.9%), and solidly enhancing (21/30, 70.0%). The majority (32/36, 88.9%) contained areas of dark T2 signal. 8/9 PMTs were positive by 99mTc-sestamibi scintigraphy, 2/4 by 111In-pentetreotide scintigraphy, 2/2 by 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and 11/13 by 18F-FDG PET/CT. On FDG PET/CT, the mean SUVmax was 4.1 ± 2.5 (range, 1.5-10.8). CONCLUSIONS: Osseous PMTs are commonly osteolytic with a narrow zone of transition. Both bone and soft tissue PMTs often contain matrix and areas of dark T2 signal on MRI, independent of the presence of matrix. However, PMTs may mimic other bone and soft tissue neoplasms, including fibrous dysplasia, tenosynovial giant cell tumor, and even atypical lipomatous tumor. As such, clinical presentation and laboratory correlation are critical to PMT recognition and accurate diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the CT and MR imaging features of phosphaturic mesenchymal tumors (PMTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: With IRB approval, our institutional radiology/pathology database was reviewed for pathologically-proven PMTs. CT and MRI examinations were reviewed in consensus noting several imaging features, and if available, comparative molecular imaging tests were analyzed. RESULTS: We identified 39 patients (21 male, 18 females) with 40 PMTs [mean age, 52.9 ± 14.9 years (range, 14-78)], including 20 bone and 20 soft tissue lesions. Mean maximal lesion diameter was 3.4 ± 2.0 cm (range, 1.1-9.8). 12/18 primary bone lesions (66.6%) were osteolytic and 15/20 (75.0%) had a narrow zone of transition. Internal matrix was present in 18/32 (56.3%) lesions. PMTs were most commonly T1 isointense (31/37, 83.8%), T2 hyperintense (14/36, 38.9%), and solidly enhancing (21/30, 70.0%). The majority (32/36, 88.9%) contained areas of dark T2 signal. 8/9 PMTs were positive by 99mTc-sestamibi scintigraphy, 2/4 by 111In-pentetreotide scintigraphy, 2/2 by 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and 11/13 by 18F-FDG PET/CT. On FDG PET/CT, the mean SUVmax was 4.1 ± 2.5 (range, 1.5-10.8). CONCLUSIONS: Osseous PMTs are commonly osteolytic with a narrow zone of transition. Both bone and soft tissue PMTs often contain matrix and areas of dark T2 signal on MRI, independent of the presence of matrix. However, PMTs may mimic other bone and soft tissue neoplasms, including fibrous dysplasia, tenosynovial giant cell tumor, and even atypical lipomatous tumor. As such, clinical presentation and laboratory correlation are critical to PMT recognition and accurate diagnosis.
Authors: Kevin H Gardner; Wonwoo Shon; Andrew L Folpe; Carilyn N Wieland; Peter J Tebben; Christian L Baum Journal: J Cutan Pathol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 1.587
Authors: Suzanne M Jan de Beur; Elizabeth A Streeten; A Cahid Civelek; Edward F McCarthy; Liliana Uribe; Stephen J Marx; Olufunmilayo Onobrakpeya; Lawrence G Raisz; Nelson B Watts; Michael Sharon; Michael A Levine Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-03-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Roderick J Clifton-Bligh; Michael S Hofman; Emma Duncan; Ie-Wen Sim; David Darnell; Adele Clarkson; Tricia Wong; John P Walsh; Anthony J Gill; Peter R Ebeling; Rodney J Hicks Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: A E Nelson; R S Mason; B G Robinson; J J Hogan; E A Martin; H Ahlström; G Aström; T Larsson; K Jonsson; L Wibell; O Ljunggren Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: J C Benson; J A Trejo-Lopez; A M Nassiri; K Eschbacher; M J Link; C L Driscoll; R D Tiegs; J Sfeir; D R DeLone Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Mohsin A M Hussein; Francesco Pio Cafarelli; Maria Teresa Paparella; Winston J Rennie; Giuseppe Guglielmi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2021-08-28 Impact factor: 3.469