Abstract
PURPOSE
The aim of the study was to describe the clinical, radiographic, and pathologic features of inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (IMT) to enhance the recognition of this rare disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The clinical, imaging, and pathologic findings were retrospectively reviewed in 54 patients with IMT lesions, which were conformed by biopsy or surgical pathology. Of 54 patients, 51 had preoperative computed tomography (CT) examination and 13 had preoperative magnetic resonance imaging records.
RESULTS
The clinical appearances of these 54 patients had some relationship with the locations of lesions. Of 54 IMT patients, 87.0% cases (47/54) had solitary lesion. The mean long diameter of the lesions located at the sites of chest, abdomen, and pelvic regions was bigger than that of other locations (F = 3.025, P = 0.038). On plain CT images, soft tissue mass was found in all IMT lesions, except for 3 lesions that arose in the intestine tract, appearing as focal or diffuse thickening in the bowel wall. After contrast administration, all lesions were persistently enhanced; 72.7% cases (24/33) demonstrated heterogeneous enhancement with various cystic regions. Comparing the CT features with different anatomic lesions, ill-defined margin on the plain CT images and calcification were seen more frequently in the lesions of the head and neck (P = 0.010 and 0.035); however, the other radiological findings had no significant differences (all P > 0.05). Twelve of 51 IMT patients showed invasion into adjacent structures. On magnetic resonance imaging, 92.3% lesions (12/13) showed soft tissue masses demonstrating isointense to hypointense contrast compared with skeletal muscle on T1-weighted images and heterogeneously high signals on T2-weighted images; 85.7%(6/7) of lesions were heterogeneously enhanced with cystic changes. Immunohistochemistry showed that the percentage of positive staining for SMA, vimentin, anaplastic lymphoma kinase, CD68, CD34, CD99, B-cell lymphoma/leukemia-2, cytokeratin, Desmin, and S-100 protein were 88.9%, 87.0%, 44.4%, 59.3%, 53.7%, 29.6%, 42.6%, 28.5%, 13.0%, and 24.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor can involve any part of the body, and the clinical and radiological appearances are various owing to different anatomic sites. An ill-defined soft tissue mass heterogeneous enhancement with or without invasion into adjacent structures on computed tomographic or magnetic resonance images and positive staining for SMA and vimentin on immunohistochemical examination could suggest the diagnosis.
Collapse