Percutaneous image-guided biopsy in malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors

Malignant and Benign Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors in a Single Center: Value of Clinical and Ultrasound Features for the Diagnosis of Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumor Compared With Magnetic Resonance Imaging

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the combined use of ultrasonography and clinical features for the differentiation of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST) from benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors (BPNST) and to compare the efficacy of ultrasonography with that of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 28 MPNSTs and a control group of 57 BPNSTs. All patients underwent an ultrasound scan using the Logiq E9 (GE Health Care, Milwaukee, WI) or EPIQ7 equipment (Philips Medical System, Bothell, WA). A 3.0-T MRI machine (Ingenia; Philips Healthcare, Best, the Netherlands) was used for scanning, and conventional MRI was performed on different regions based on the patient's clinical situation. The following variables were evaluated: palpable mass, pain, nerve symptoms, maximum diameter, location, shape, boundary, encapsulation, echogenicity, echo homogeneity, presence of a cystic component, calcification, target sign, posterior echo, and intertumoral vascularity of the tumors. The diagnostic efficacy of ultrasonography and clinical factors was compared with that of MRI. Independent factors for predicting MPNST versus BPNST were also assessed.

RESULTS

The parameters of location, shape, boundary, encapsulation, and vascularity were significantly different between MPNSTs and BPNSTs. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that shape, boundary, and vascularity were independent predictors of MPNSTs. The sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index of the three clinical and ultrasound factors (shape, boundary, and vascularity) were 0.89, 0.81, and 0.69, respectively, whereas those of MRI were 0.71, 0.89, and 0.61, respectively. No significant differences in the area under the curve (AUC) of the three combined clinical and ultrasound factors and those of MRI were found (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI was useful in the differential diagnosis between MPNSTs and BPNSTs. However, the combination of clinical and ultrasound diagnoses can achieve the same effect as MRI, including shape, boundary, and vasculature.

Ultrasound-guided nerve block prior to biopsy of suspected neurogenic tumors: safety and feasibility in a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate the safety and feasibility of ultrasound-guided nerve block prior to biopsy of potentially neurogenic tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of the medical record from June 2017 to June 2022 identified ultrasound-guided biopsies of potentially neurogenic tumors that were performed with a pre-procedural nerve block. Patient demographics, biopsy site, number of passes, needle gauge, use of sedation, pathology results, and procedural complications were recorded and summarized.

RESULTS

The structured search found 16 patients that underwent biopsies of 18 potentially neurogenic tumors with the use of a pre-procedural nerve block at a variety of upper and lower extremity locations. Average patient age was 52 (range 18-78) and 9 patients (56%) were female. Of the 16 patients, 10 were performed without intravenous sedation. Three patients were unable to tolerate biopsy until a nerve block was used. All biopsies yielded a diagnostic sample with 13 of the tumors neurogenic in origin. One patient reported mild postprocedural pain which resolved with conservative treatment; no other complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

Nerve block prior to ultrasound-guided biopsy of potentially neurogenic tumors is a safe and feasible technique. Further study is needed to determine the extent to which nerve block can decrease intra-procedural pain and reduce or eliminate the need for sedation during biopsy.

Investigation of Ultrasound Parameters for the Differential Diagnosis of Malignant and Benign Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to identify the key features of malignant and benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors (PNSTs) and determine a strategy for differentiating them using sonography.

METHODS

Forty-six malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs) and 83 benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors (BPNSTs) confirmed by pathology from April 2010 to July 2021 were included. The general data and grayscale and color Doppler ultrasonic manifestations were compared between the two groups. We used single factor, multifactor, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses to extract significant malignant risk factors and then established a scoring system with these factors.

RESULTS

The significant variables identified in univariate analysis (P < .05) were maximum diameter, location, shape, boundary, encapsulation, echogenicity, texture pattern, calcification, entering or exiting nerve, and vascularity. Shape, boundary and vascularity were significant risk factors, and a scoring system was established. The area under the ROC curve (0.925) confirmed the usefulness of the scoring system for differentiating MPNSTs and BPNSTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasonography is an effective method for differentiating MPNSTs from BPNSTs.

MPNST without muscle weakness at presentation: an analysis of an underappreciated combination

INTRODUCTION

Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs) of major motor nerves typically present with muscle weakness and pain. We aim to analyze and characterize patients with MPNST at major motor nerves but without muscle weakness at initial presentation.

METHODS

A retrospective search involving MPNSTs in a major nerve evaluated and/or treated at our institution from 1994 to 2019 was performed. Patients with no muscle weakness and available MRI were analyzed. Clinical materials, MR images and PET scans were reviewed for features of malignancy. This group of patients was compared to patients who presented with MPNSTs and muscle weakness.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients were included in the no muscle weakness group. Of them, twenty-one (81%) patients had a positive family history for malignancy. Only 16 (62%) MR images were highly suspicious for malignancy. All 7 available PET-scans were highly suspicious for malignancy. Patients who presented with muscle weakness (n = 36), were more likely to have paresthesias and a history of NF-1 or radiation to the MPNST location (p-value < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

MPNSTs of major motor nerves without muscle weakness represent an underappreciated subset of cases which has potential treatment and outcome implications. These patients presented with fewer symptoms and had fewer risk factors than patients with muscle weakness. PET-scans should be considered as an extra method of trying to anticipate the diagnosis of an MPNST.