Evaluation of Classic and Quantitative Imaging Features in the Differentiation of Benign and Atypical Lipomatous Soft Tissue Tumors Using a Standardized Multiparametric MRI Protocol: A Prospective Single-Centre Study in 45 Patients.
MRI
atypical lipomatous tumors
imaging features
lipoma
ranking
soft tissue tumors
Journal
Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)
ISSN: 1718-7729
Titre abrégé: Curr Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9502503
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 03 2023
13 03 2023
Historique:
received:
07
01
2023
revised:
24
02
2023
accepted:
07
03
2023
medline:
30
3
2023
entrez:
28
3
2023
pubmed:
29
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Discrimination between benign and atypical lipomatous tumors (ALT) is important due to potential local complications and recurrence of ALT but can be difficult due to the often-similar imaging appearance. Using a standardized MRI protocol, this study aimed to rank established and quantitative MRI features by diagnostic value in the differentiation of benign and atypical lipomatous tumors and to develop a robust scoring system. Patients with clinical or sonographic suspicion of a lipomatous tumor were prospectively and consecutively enrolled from 2015 to 2019 after ethic review board approval. Histology was confirmed for all ALT and 85% of the benign cases. Twenty-one demographic and morphologic and twenty-three quantitative features were extracted from a standardized MRI protocol (T1/T2-proton-density-weighting, turbo-inversion recovery magnitude, T2* multi-echo gradient-echo imaging, qDIXON-Vibe fat-quantification, T1 relaxometry, T1 mapping, diffusion-weighted and post-contrast sequences). A ranking of these features was generated through a Bayes network analysis with gain-ratio feature evaluation. Forty-five patients were included in the analysis (mean age, 61.2 ± 14.2 years, 27 women [60.0%]). The highest-ranked ALT predictors were septation thickness (gain ratio merit [GRM] 0.623 ± 0.025, Several single MRI features have a substantial diagnostic value in the identification of ALT, yet a multiparametric approach by a simple combination algorithm may support radiologists in the identification of lipomatous tumors in need for further histological assessment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Discrimination between benign and atypical lipomatous tumors (ALT) is important due to potential local complications and recurrence of ALT but can be difficult due to the often-similar imaging appearance. Using a standardized MRI protocol, this study aimed to rank established and quantitative MRI features by diagnostic value in the differentiation of benign and atypical lipomatous tumors and to develop a robust scoring system.
METHODS
Patients with clinical or sonographic suspicion of a lipomatous tumor were prospectively and consecutively enrolled from 2015 to 2019 after ethic review board approval. Histology was confirmed for all ALT and 85% of the benign cases. Twenty-one demographic and morphologic and twenty-three quantitative features were extracted from a standardized MRI protocol (T1/T2-proton-density-weighting, turbo-inversion recovery magnitude, T2* multi-echo gradient-echo imaging, qDIXON-Vibe fat-quantification, T1 relaxometry, T1 mapping, diffusion-weighted and post-contrast sequences). A ranking of these features was generated through a Bayes network analysis with gain-ratio feature evaluation.
RESULTS
Forty-five patients were included in the analysis (mean age, 61.2 ± 14.2 years, 27 women [60.0%]). The highest-ranked ALT predictors were septation thickness (gain ratio merit [GRM] 0.623 ± 0.025,
CONCLUSIONS
Several single MRI features have a substantial diagnostic value in the identification of ALT, yet a multiparametric approach by a simple combination algorithm may support radiologists in the identification of lipomatous tumors in need for further histological assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36975465
pii: curroncol30030252
doi: 10.3390/curroncol30030252
pmc: PMC10047222
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3315-3328Références
Eur J Radiol. 2004 Jun;50(3):257-67
pubmed: 15145485
Histopathology. 2014 Jan;64(1):38-52
pubmed: 24118009
Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015 Feb 01;8(2):1776-82
pubmed: 25973067
Eur Radiol. 2016 Dec;26(12):4640-4648
pubmed: 26960540
Am J Surg Pathol. 2010 Sep;34(9):1304-11
pubmed: 20679883
Skeletal Radiol. 2020 Jun;49(6):1005-1014
pubmed: 31965239
Med Image Anal. 2012 Jul;16(5):933-51
pubmed: 22465077
Magn Reson Med. 2014 Nov;72(5):1353-65
pubmed: 24323332
Radiology. 2009 Nov;253(2):297-316
pubmed: 19864525
Skeletal Radiol. 2013 May;42(5):635-47
pubmed: 22987247
Skeletal Radiol. 2006 Oct;35(10):719-33
pubmed: 16927086
Br J Surg. 2019 Dec;106(13):1800-1809
pubmed: 31747074
Insights Imaging. 2011 Oct;2(5):599-607
pubmed: 22347979
Radiographics. 2016 May-Jun;36(3):753-66
pubmed: 27163592
Histopathology. 2014 Jan;64(1):2-11
pubmed: 24164390
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 30;13(8):e0201013
pubmed: 30161125
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2020 Jun;101(6):383-390
pubmed: 32107197
Am J Clin Pathol. 1994 Nov;102(5):677-83
pubmed: 7942636
Phys Med. 2019 Apr;60:76-82
pubmed: 31000090
Eur Radiol Exp. 2020 Aug 3;4(1):45
pubmed: 32743728
BMC Cancer. 2019 Apr 3;19(1):309
pubmed: 30943944
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Feb 22;16:36
pubmed: 25879189
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 May;(398):203-11
pubmed: 11964652
Eur J Radiol. 2020 Jun;127:109012
pubmed: 32339981
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Oct;41(10):1400-5
pubmed: 26163048
Radiology. 2002 Jul;224(1):99-104
pubmed: 12091667