Conventional and Functional MR Imaging of Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors: Initial Experience

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Kransdorf MJ

   . Benign soft-tissue tumors in a large referral population: distribution of specific diagnoses by age, sex, and location. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:395–402

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Ducatman BS,
   2. Scheithauer BW,
   3. Piepgras DG,
   4. et al

   . Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: a clinicopathologic study of 120 cases. Cancer 1986;57:2006–21

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Evans DG,
   2. Baser ME,
   3. McGaughran J,
   4. et al

   . Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors in neurofibromatosis 1. J Med Genet 2002;39:311–14

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Bhargava R,
   2. Parham DM,
   3. Lasater OE,
   4. et al

   . MR imaging differentiation of benign and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: use of the target sign. Pediatr Radiol 1997;27:124–29

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Kehrer-Sawatzki H,
   2. Kluwe L,
   3. Fünsterer C,
   4. et al

   . Extensively high load of internal tumors determined by whole body MRI scanning in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 and a non-LCR-mediated 2-Mb deletion in 17q11.2. Hum Genet 2005;116:466–75

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Koşucu P,
   2. Ahmetoĝlu A,
   3. Cobanoĝlu U,
   4. et al

   . Mesenteric involvement in neurofibromatosis type 1: CT and MRI findings in two cases. Abdom Imaging 2003;28:822–26

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Wasa J,
   2. Nishida Y,
   3. Tsukushi S,
   4. et al

   . MRI features in the differentiation of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors and neurofibromas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:1568–74

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Frassica FJ,
   2. Khanna JA,
   3. McCarthy EF

   . The role of MR imaging in soft tissue tumor evaluation: perspective of the orthopedic oncologist and musculoskeletal pathologist. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2000;8:915–27

   PubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Beert E,
   2. Brems H,
   3. Daniëls B,
   4. et al

   . Atypical neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis type 1 are premalignant tumors. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2011;50:1021–32

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Friedrich RE,
    2. Gawad K,
    3. Derlin T,
    4. et al

    . Surgery for atypical plexiform neurofibromas of the trunk in NF1 with high standardised uptake value (SUV) in positron-emission tomography (PET) expressing podoplanin: a long-term follow-up. Anticancer Res 2012;32:4547–51

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Meany H,
    2. Dombi E,
    3. Reynolds J,
    4. et al

    . 18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) evaluation of nodular lesions in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 and plexiform neurofibromas (PN) or malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST). Pediatr Blood Cancer 2013;60:59–64

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Papp DF,
    2. Khanna AJ,
    3. McCarthy EF,
    4. et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging of soft-tissue tumors: determinate and indeterminate lesions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89(suppl 3):103–15

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Fayad LM,
    2. Jacobs MA,
    3. Wang X,
    4. et al

    . Musculoskeletal tumors: how to use anatomic, functional, and metabolic MR techniques. Radiology 2012;265:340–56

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Maeda M,
    2. Matsumine A,
    3. Kato H,
    4. et al

    . Soft-tissue tumors evaluated by line-scan diffusion-weighted imaging: influence of myxoid matrix on the apparent diffusion coefficient. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:1199–204

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Van Rijswijk CS,
    2. Geirnaerdt MJ,
    3. Hogendoorn PC,
    4. et al

    . Soft-tissue tumors: value of static and dynamic gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging in prediction of malignancy. Radiology 2004;233:493–502

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Hawighorst H,
    2. Libicher M,
    3. Knopp MV,
    4. et al

    . Evaluation of angiogenesis and perfusion of bone marrow lesions: role of semiquantitative and quantitative dynamic MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:286–94

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Perkins NJ,
    2. Schisterman EF

    . The inconsistency of “optimal” cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:670–75

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Rydholm A,
    2. Berg N

    . Size, site and clinical incidence of lipoma: factors in the differential diagnosis of lipoma and sarcoma. Acta Orthop Scand 1983;54:929–34

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Ahlawat S,
    2. Blakeley J,
    3. Montgomery E,
    4. et al

    . Schwannoma in neurofibromatosis type 1: a pitfall for detecting malignancy by metabolic imaging. Skeletal Radiol 2013;42:1317–22

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Rosenkrantz AB,
    2. Kim S,
    3. Lim RP,
    4. et al

    . Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 2013;269:482–92

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Fayad LM,
    2. Mugera C,
    3. Soldatos T,
    4. et al

    . Technical innovation in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal tumors: an MR angiographic sequence using a sparse k-space sampling strategy. Skeletal Radiol 2013;42:993–1000

    CrossRefPubMed