Imaging features and biopsy yield of soft tissue metastatic lesions: 10-year single tertiary center experience.
Biopsy yield
Image-guided biopsy
Soft tissue metastasis
Journal
Skeletal radiology
ISSN: 1432-2161
Titre abrégé: Skeletal Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7701953
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
16
08
2022
accepted:
27
09
2022
revised:
27
09
2022
pubmed:
7
10
2022
medline:
15
2
2023
entrez:
6
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate imaging features of soft tissue metastases, technical factors associated with diagnostic yield of image-guided biopsy, and clinical impact of biopsy results on patient outcomes. A total of 1605 image-guided soft tissue biopsies were retrospectively identified from December 2010 to December 2020. Included lesions were histologically proven musculoskeletal soft tissue metastases. Lesions were excluded if intraabdominal, intrathoracic, retroperitoneal, associated with osseous lesions or surgical scar implants or arising from skin or lymph nodes. Image guidance modality, needle size, number of cores, and lesion location, size, and depth from skin were recorded. Patient demographics, malignancy history, biopsy-driven changes in management, and survival rate after biopsy were collected. Forty-six patients met the inclusion criteria with a biopsy diagnostic yield of 44/46 (95.7%). Metastases were most commonly located truncal (82.6%, p < 0.001) and intramuscular (78.3%, p < 0.001). A total of 37/46 (80.4%) biopsies were US-guided. And 9/46 (19.6%) were CT-guided. There was no significant difference in the number of cores or mean needle gauge between diagnostic and nondiagnostic biopsies. At time of review, 23 (50%) patients were deceased, with a mean survival of 13.5 months after biopsy. The majority (71.7%) of patients had a known primary malignancy at time of biopsy, most commonly lung (24.2%) and breast (24.2%). Overall survival showed no association with anatomic location (p > 0.83) or tissue type (p > 0.34). The most common biopsy-driven outcome was initiation of chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and/or radiotherapy (52.2%). Image-guided biopsy for soft tissue metastases has high diagnostic yield and commonly influences clinical management. Metastases were most commonly intramuscular in the trunk and are associated with poor prognosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36202920
doi: 10.1007/s00256-022-04197-0
pii: 10.1007/s00256-022-04197-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
705-714Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to International Skeletal Society (ISS).
Références
Fletcher C, Unni K, Mertens F. World health organization classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics of tumours of soft tissue and bone. 4th ed. vol. 5. Lyon: IARC Press; 2002.
Wu JS, Hochman MG. Soft-tissue tumors and tumorlike lesions: a systematic imaging approach. Radiology [Internet]. 2009;253(2):297–316. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2532081199 .
Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD. Radiologic evaluation of soft-tissue masses. Am J Roentgenol [Internet]. 2000;175(3):575–87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.175.3.1750575 .
Ryndholm A, Berg NO. Size, site and clinical incidence of lipoma. Factors in the differential diagnosis of lipoma and sarcoma. Acta Orthop Scand. 1983;54(6):929–34.
doi: 10.3109/17453678308992936
Plaza JA, Perez-Montiel D, Mayerson J, Morrison C, Suster S. Metastases to soft tissue. Cancer [Internet]. 2008;112(1):193–203. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23151 .
Tuoheti Y, Okada K, Osanai T, Nishida J, Ehara S, Hashimoto M, et al. Skeletal muscle metastases of carcinoma: a clinicopathological study of 12 cases. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2004;34(4):210–4.
doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyh036
Herring CLJr, Harrelson JM, Scully SP. Metastatic carcinoma to skeletal muscle: a report of 15 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Internet]. 1998;355. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/clinorthop/Fulltext/1998/10000/Metastatic_Carcinoma_to_Skeletal_Muscle__A_Report.29.aspx .
Berquist TH, Ehman RL, King BF, Hodgman CG, Ilstrup DM. Value of MR imaging in differentiating benign from malignant soft-tissue masses: study of 95 lesions. Am J Roentgenol [Internet]. 1990;155(6):1251–5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.155.6.2122675 .
Chiou HJ, Chou YH, Chiu SY, Wang HK, Chen WM, Chen TH, et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant superficial soft-tissue masses using grayscale and color doppler ultrasonography. J Chin Med Assoc [Internet]. 2009;72(6). Available from: https://journals.lww.com/jcma/Fulltext/2009/06000/Differentiation_of_Benign_and_Malignant.6.aspx .
Heiken JP, Lee JK, Smathers RL, Totty WG, Murphy WA. CT of benign soft-tissue masses of the extremities. Am J Roentgenol [Internet]. 1984;142(3):575–80. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.142.3.575 .
Weekes RG, McLeod RA, Reiman HM, Pritchard DJ. CT of soft-tissue neoplasms. Am J Roentgenol [Internet]. 1985;144(2):355–60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.144.2.355 .
Nagano S, Yahiro Y, Yokouchi M. Doppler ultrasound for diagnosis of soft tissue sarcoma: efficacy of ultrasound-based screening score. Radiol Oncol. 2015;49(2):135–40.
doi: 10.1515/raon-2015-0011
Winn N, Baldwin J, Cassar-Pullicino V. Characterization of soft tissue tumors with ultrasound, shear wave elastography and MRI. Skeltal Radiol. 2020;49(6):869–81.
doi: 10.1007/s00256-019-03363-1
Tavare A, Alfuraih A, Hensor E. Shear-wave elastography of benign versus malignant musculoskeletal soft-tissue masses: comparison with conventional US and MRI. Radiology. 2019;290(2):410–7.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180950
Bansal A, Goyal S, Goyal A. WHO classification of soft tissue tumours 2020: an update and simplified approach for radiologists. Eur J Radiol. 2021.
Surov A, Hainz M, Holzhausen H, Arnold D, Katzer M, Schmidt J, et al. Skeletal muscle metastases: primary tumours, prevalence, and radiological features. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(3):649–58.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1577-1
Pretorius E, Fishman E. Helical CT of skeletal muscle metastases from primary carcinomas. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174(2):401–4.
doi: 10.2214/ajr.174.2.1740401
Skrzynski MC, Biermann JS, Montag A, Simon MA. Diagnostic accuracy and charge-savings of outpatient core needle biopsy compared with open biopsy of musculoskeletal tumors. JBJS [Internet]. 1996;78(5). Available from: https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Fulltext/1996/05000/Diagnostic_Accuracy_and_Charge_Savings_of.2.aspx .
Fraser-Hill MA, Renfrew DL, Hilsenrath PE. Percutaneous needle biopsy of musculoskeletal lesions. 2. Cost-effectiveness. Am J Roentgenol [Internet]. 1992;158(4):813–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.158.4.1546598 .
Pohlig F, Kirchhoff C, Lenze U, Schauwecker J, Burgkart R, Rechl H, et al. Percutaneous core needle biopsy versus open biopsy in diagnostics of bone and soft tissue sarcoma: a retrospective study. Eur J Med Res [Internet]. 2012;17(1):29. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23114293 .
Wu JS, Goldsmith JD, Horwich PJ, Shetty SK, Hochman MG. Bone and soft-tissue lesions: what factors affect diagnostic yield of image-guided core-needle biopsy? Radiology [Internet]. 2008;248(3):962–70. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2483071742 .
López JI, del Cura JL, Zabala R, Bilbao FJ. Usefulness and limitations of ultrasound-guided core biopsy in the diagnosis of musculoskeletal tumours. APMIS. 2005;113(5):353–60.
Torriani M, Etchebehere M, Amstalden EMI. Sonographically guided core needle biopsy of bone and soft tissue tumors. J Ultrasound Med. 2002;21(3):275–81.
Yeow KM, Tan CF, Chen JS, Hsueh C. Diagnostic sensitivity of ultrasound-guided needle biopsy in soft tissue masses about superficial bone lesions. J Ultrasound Med. 2000;19(12):849–55.
Peer S, Freuis T, Loizides A, Gruber H. Ultrasound guided core needle biopsy of soft tissue tumors; a fool proof technique? Med Ultrason. 2011;13(3):187–94.
Omura MC, Motamedi K, UyBico S, Nelson SD, Seeger LL. Revisiting CT-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy of musculoskeletal lesions: contributors to biopsy success. Am J Roentgenol [Internet]. 2011;197(2):457–61. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.6145 .
Nguyen NC, Chaar BT, Osman MM. Prevalence and patterns of soft tissue metastasis: detection with true whole-body F-18 FDG PET/CT. BMC Med Imaging. 2007;7(1):8.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2342-7-8
Damron TA, Heiner J. Distant soft tissue metastases: a series of 30 new patients and 91 cases from the literature. Ann Surg Oncol [Internet]. 2000;7(7):526–34. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10434-000-0526-7 .
Bar-Yehuda S, Barer F, Volfsson L, Fishman P. Resistance of muscle to tumor metastases: a role for a3 adenosine receptor agonists. Neoplasia [Internet]. 2001;3(2):125–31. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11420748 .
LaBan MM, Nagarajan R, Riutta JC. Paucity of muscle metastasis in otherwise widely disseminated cancer: a conundrum. Am J Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 2010;89(11). Available from: https://journals.lww.com/ajpmr/Fulltext/2010/11000/Paucity_of_Muscle_Metastasis_in_Otherwise_Widely.10.aspx .
Pretell-Mazzini J, de Neyra JZS, Luengo-Alonso G, Shemesh S. Skeletal muscle metastasis from the most common carcinomas orthopedic surgeons deal with. A systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg [Internet]. 2017;137(11):1477–89. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2782-z .