| Literature DB >> 35885528 |
Sebastian Weiss1, Valentin Weisse1, Alexander Korthaus1, Peter Bannas2, Karl-Heinz Frosch1,3, Carsten Schlickewei1, Alexej Barg1,4, Matthias Priemel1.
Abstract
Appendicular soft tissue lymphoma (ASTL) is rare and is frequently misinterpreted as soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Studies investigating magnet resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics of ASTL are scarce and showed heterogenous investigation criteria and results. The purpose of this study was to systematically review clinical presentations and MRI characteristics of ASTL as described in the current literature. For that purpose, we performed a systematic literature review in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Patient demographics, clinical presentation and MRI imaging characteristics of ASTL were investigated, resulting in a total of nine included studies reporting a total of 77 patients. Signal intensity of lymphoma compared to muscle tissue was mostly described as isointense (53%) or slightly hyperintense (39%) in T1-weighted images and always as hyperintense in proton-and T2-weighted images. Multicompartmental involvement was reported in 59% of cases and subcutaneous stranding in 74%. Long segmental involvement was present in 80% of investigated cases. Involvement of neurovascular structures was reported in 41% of cases and the presence of traversing vessels in 83% of patients. The presence of these findings should lead to the inclusion of ASTL in the differential diagnosis of soft tissue masses.Entities:
Keywords: MRI; MSK; extremities; radiology; soft tissue lymphoma; soft tissue masses
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885528 PMCID: PMC9320678 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12071623
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Modified AXIS tool [26].
| Question No. | Introduction |
|---|---|
|
| Were the aims/objectives of the study clear? |
|
| |
|
| Was the study design appropriate for the stated aim(s)? |
|
| Was the sample size justified? |
|
| Was the target/reference population clearly defined, did the sample frame represent the defined target/reference population and was the selection process appropriately? |
|
| Were the methods sufficiently described to enable them to be repeated? |
|
| |
|
| Were the basic data adequately described? |
|
| Were the results internally consistent? |
|
| Were the results presented for all the analyses described in the methods? |
|
| |
|
| Were the authors discussions and conclusions justified by the results? |
|
| Were the limitations of the study discussed? |
|
| |
|
| Were there any funding sources or conflicts of interest that may affect the authors interpretation of the results? |
|
| Was ethical approval or consent of participants attained? |
Figure 1Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart.
Assessment of included studies for risk of bias and reporting quality, according to the modified AXIS tool [26].
| AXIS Score | Risk of Bias | Reporting Quality | Number of Studies |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–6 | High | Low |
|
| 7–9 | Medium | Medium |
|
| 10–12 | Low | High |
|
Study parameters including demographics and clinical data (sorted by year).
| Study Parameters | Demographics | Clinical Data | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author/Year | AXIS Score | No. of Patients Included | Imaging Modalities | Sex | Age Range (Years) | Regional | Pain/Discomfort (Yes/No) | Swelling/Enlargement of Muscle (Based on Clinical vs. MRI Examination) (Yes/No) |
| Hosono et al., 1995 [ | 6 | 4 | MRI/CT | 2F | 58–65 | N/A | 2/4 | 4/4 (via MRI) |
| Beggs et al., 1996 [ | 5 | 4 | MRI/ CT/ | 2F | 42–68 | 1/4 | 3/4 | 3/4 (clinical) |
| Eustace et al., 1996 [ | 8 | 2 | MRI | 2F | 67–68 | N/A | 1/2 | 2/2 (via MRI) |
| Lee et al., 1997 [ | 8 | 3 | MRI/CT/ | 3F | 15–80 | N/A | 1/3 | 3/3 |
| Carroll et al., 2007 [ | 9 | 7 | MRI | 2F | 56–68 | 6/7 | N/A | N/A |
| Suresh et al., 2008 [ | 10 | 24 | MRI | 10F | 35–91 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Surov et al., 2010 [ | 11 | 5 | MRI/CT | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 5/5 (via MRI) |
| Chun et al., 2010 [ | 10 | 20 | MRI | 6F | 5–90 | 0/20 | N/A | 20/20 (via MRI) |
| Surov et al., 2014 [ | 9 | 8 | MRI | 5F | 58–73 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summarized MRI characteristics of included studies (sorted by year).
| Author/Year | T1W 1 | T2W 1 | T2W 2 | PD 1 | STIR 1 | T1W Contrast | Margins | No. of Affected Compartments | Long Segmental Involvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hosono et al., 1995 [ | 2 Slightly hyperintense | 3 Hyperintense | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2 Homogeneous | N/A | 1 Multiple | 2 Yes |
| Beggs et al., 1996 [ | 3 Slightly hyperintense | 3 Hyperintense | N/A | 3 Hyperintense | 2 Hyperintense | 2 Heterogeneous | 1 Well-defined | 3 Multiple | N/A |
| Eustace et al., 1996 [ | 2 Isointense | 2 Hyperintense | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2 Homogeneous | 1 Well-defined | 1 Multiple | N/A |
| Lee et al., 1997 [ | 3 Isointense | N/A | 3 Hyperintense | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | “Often more than one” | 3 Yes |
| Carroll et al., 2007 [ | 5 Iso to slightly hyperintense | 7 Hyperintense | N/A | N/A | N/A | 5 Homogeneous | 4 Well-defined | 5 Multiple | N/A |
| Suresh et al., 2008 [ | 15 slightly hyperintense | 14 hyperintense | 14 hypointense | N/A | 16 Hyperintense | 4 Homogeneous | 8 Well-defined | 12 Multiple | N/A |
| Surov et al., 2010 [ | 5 Isointense | 5 Hyperintense | 5 hypointense | N/A | N/A | 5 Homogeneous | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Chun et al., 2010 [ | 9 Slightly hyperintense | N/A | 20 Intermediate (isointense) | N/A | N/A | 13 Diffuse homogeneous | N/A | 14 Multiple | 15 Yes |
| Surov et al., 2014 [ | 8 Isointense | 8 Hyperintense | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 signal intensity compared to muscle tissue; 2 signal intensity compared to fat tissue.
Figure 2MRI of a 73-year-old man presenting with non-Hodgkin lymphoma manifestation in the flexor compartment of the upper arm. (A). Coronal T2-weighted TIRM image shows tumor of hyperintense signal intensity compared to muscle (arrow) and growth along the brachial neurovascular bundle (arrowheads). (B). Sagittal T1-weighted image shows long segmental involvement (arrows) and slightly hyperintense signal intensity of tumor in comparison to adjacent skeletal muscle. (C). Transversal contrast enhanced fat-saturated T1-weighted image shows homogenous contrast-enhancement of the lymphoma with encasement of the brachial neurovascular bundle (black arrows). Furthermore, subcutaneous stranding (white arrow) and contrast enhancement of the deep peripheral fascia (arrowheads) can be seen.
Figure 3MRI of a 68-year-old woman presenting with non-Hodgkin lymphoma manifestation in the thigh. Transversal contrast enhanced fat-saturated T1-weighted image shows a tumor in the posterior compartment of the thigh, revealing predominant enhancement of tumor margins (arrowheads). Moreover, signal alteration of fascia lata can be noted (arrow).
Figure 4MRI of a 67-year-old man presenting with a predominantly subcutaneous manifestation of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the right axilla. (A). Transversal contrast enhanced fat-saturated T1-weighted image shows a lobulated tumor (arrow) with inhomogeneous enhancement pattern which infiltrates into the pectoralis major and minor muscles and skin (arrowheads). Moreover, an accompanying lipoma can be noted (asterisk). (B). Coronal T1-weighted image shows associated lymphadenopathy (arrowheads).