Glazebrook, Katrina N.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the imaging appearance, diagnosis, and management of mammary and extramammary myofibroblastoma (MFB) in a series of 23 patients. Methods and materials: Following institutional review board approval, cases were identified by searching for “myofibroblastoma” in radiology reports. Multimodality imaging and pathological features were assessed. Results: 23 cases of myofibroblastoma were identified in 15 males and 8 females. Most cases were in the breast (20/23, 87%), presenting as a palpable mass or discovered incidentally on mammography in females or chest CT in males. Extramammary MFB lesions (3/23, 13%) presented with symptoms related to mass effect. At imaging, MFB most often demonstrated an oval or irregular mass that was hypoechoic or heterogeneously echogenic with variable margins. MRI showed T2 hyperintensity, diffusion restriction, and plateau kinetics. Extramammary MFB appeared as an enhancing mass with variable fat content and T2 intensity. Conclusion: Here we describe imaging and clinicopathological features of mammary and extramammary myofibroblastoma. Advances in knowledge: Imaging description of this rare tumor is limited in the literature, and to date this is the largest case series describing the imaging findings.

Background: Lytic bone lesions are one of the most common clinical characteristics of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and identification of bone lesions help distinguish between patients with smoldering multiple MM and active MM. Given this, the most recent update of the diagnostic criteria for MM incorporates advanced imaging approaches for distinguishing between the two entities. Several small retrospective studies have compared conventional skeletal survey (SS) with whole-body low dose computed tomography (WBLDCT) scan or the CT portion of a positron emission tomography (PET) scan. Conducting prospective studies comparing these two modalities side by side is limited by the radiation exposure. We undertook this study to provide a comparison between these two imaging modalities in terms of their ability to recognize lytic bone lesions in patients with MM. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients with the diagnosis of MM treated at Mayo Cinic Hospital during 2004- 2018. Patients were included if they had a conventional skeletal survey no more than 3 months before MM diagnosis or any time after diagnosis and also had a WBLDCT or PET-CT within a 12-month period following the skeletal survey. We chose this approach since it is unlikely that a patient would have had both modalities done at the same time as part of standard of care (SOC). This approach was also facilitated by a gradual change in our SOC for skeletal imaging from conventional skeletal survey to WBLDCT. To measure the robustness of our findings, we performed a sensitivity analysis in patients who had the exam ≤6 months apart. Proportions were compared using a chi-square test and survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan- Meier methodology and compared using log rank test. Results: The overall study cohort had 1040 patients, median age was 62 years at diagnosis (range, 24-94), 61% were male and 39% were female. The median time to the skeletal survey was 8 months from diagnosis (range, 0-160) and the median time to WBLDCT or PET-CT from SS was 2 months (0-12). A PET-CT was available in 789 (76%) of patients and WBLDCT in 251 (24%) of patients. Among the 300 patients with no lesions identified by SS, 188 (63%) had lytic lesions identified by CT, while in 60/740 (8%) patients with a positive SS did not have lytic lesions observed on the CT (p<0.0001). Overall, CT identified lytic lesions in 868 (84%) patients compared with 740 (71%) patients with lytic lesions seen on SS. Although the proportion of lytic lesions was slightly higher with PET compared to WBLDCT, the analysis did not reach statistical significance (65% vs. 56%; p = 0.17; Table 1a). After restricting the analysis to those with ≤6 months gap between low dose CT and SS (n=737), the result did not change (Table 1b). Further examination demonstrated that presence of lytic lesions by SS had no impact on OS from diagnosis, detection of lesions on the CT exam was associated with an inferior survival (112 vs. 81 months, p<0.0001). (Figure 1) Conclusion: Skeletal survey has been the screening technique of choice for evaluation of bone involvement in MM for decades. However, CT based approaches have higher sensitivity with lytic lesions identified in a higher proportion of patients. The prognostic value of lytic disease is evident with CT based detection, again suggesting that this provides a more accurate estimate of the skeletal disease burden. Low dose CT rather than conventional radiographs should be the modality of choice for monitoring disease-progression and diagnosing active multiple myeloma. Disclosures Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Gertz:Abbvie: Other; Celgene: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Aurora Bio: Other; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee. Dispenzieri:Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Lin:Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy. Kumar:Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding.

AbstractWith rapid advancements in the diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), imaging has become instrumental in detection of intramedullary and extramedullary disease, providing prognostic information, and assessing therapeutic efficacy. Whole‐body low dose computed tomography (WBLDCT) has emerged as the study of choice to detect osteolytic bone disease. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) combines functional and morphologic information to identify MM disease activity and assess treatment response. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has excellent soft‐tissue contrast and is the modality of choice for bone marrow evaluation. This review focuses on the imaging modalities available for MM patient management, highlighting advantages, disadvantages, and applications of each.

Pseudoaneurysm (PSA) formation is a potential complication of breast biopsies. Ultrasound is the most common imaging modality used for evaluation and treatment of a PSA. Color Doppler images show a cystic structure with swirling flow inside in a “to‐and‐fro” pattern. Treatment options for PSA include observation, ultrasound‐guided focused compression, thrombin injection, open surgical repair, and percutaneous embolization. The risks and benefits of these treatment options will be discussed in the following cases.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate diffusion weighted magnetic rsonance imaging (MRI) acquisitions in delineating posterior extent of breast tumors and in predicting chest wall invasion prior to treatment. To our knowledge, there has not been any literature specifically evaluating the utility of diffusion-weighted acquisitions in chest wall invasion of breast tumors. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of our breast imaging database for keywords “chest wall invasion” and “breast MRI” was performed over the last 14 years. Diffusion sequences, T1 sequences (pre and post contrast), and T2 sequences were evaluated. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in tumor and chest wall were assessed. Imaging findings were correlated with surgical pathology. Results: 23 patients met inclusion criteria. All 23 had loss of fat plane on T2 sequences. 22/23 had loss of fat plane on postcontrast T1 sequences. Pectoralis muscle enhancement was present in 19/23 (83%) tumors and chest wall enhancement was present 9/23 (39%) tumors. Qualitative restricted diffusion within the pectoralis muscle was present in 18/23 (71%) tumors and in the chest wall was present in 8/23 (35%) tumors. Mean ADC values were 1.15 s/mm2 in the tumor and 1.29 s/mm2 in the chest wall. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 100%, 36%, 63%, and 100% for chest wall enhancement respectively and 69%, 36%, 61%, and 80% for chest wall diffusion-weighted imaging restriction respectively. Conclusion: Diffusion weighted sequences can be helpful in characterizing chest wall invasion of breast tumors.

The authors present the cases of 3 patients with severe injuries affecting the peroneal nerve combined with loss of tibialis posterior function (inversion) despite preservation of other tibial nerve function. Loss of tibialis posterior function is problematic, since transfer of the tibialis posterior tendon is arguably the best reconstructive option for foot drop, when available. Analysis of preoperative imaging studies correlated with operative findings and showed that the injuries, while predominantly to the common peroneal nerve, also affected the lateral portion of the tibial nerve/division near the sciatic nerve bifurcation. Sunderland’s fascicular topographic maps demonstrate the localization of the fascicular bundle subserving the tibialis posterior to the area that corresponds to the injury. This has clinical significance in predicting injury patterns and potentially for treatment of these injuries. The lateral fibers of the tibial division/nerve may be vulnerable with long stretch injuries. Due to the importance of tibialis posterior function, it may be important to perform internal neurolysis of the tibial division/nerve in order to facilitate nerve action potential testing of these fascicles, ultimately performing split nerve graft repair when nerve action potentials are absent in this important portion of the tibial nerve.

Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the impact on metal artifacts and dose efficiency of using a tin filter in combination with high-energy threshold (TH) images of a photon-counting detector (PCD) computed tomography (CT) system. Materials and Methods A 3D-printed spine with pedicle screws was scanned on a PCD-CT system with and without tin filtration. Image noise and severity of artifacts were measured for low-energy threshold (TL) and TH images. In a prospective, institutional review board–approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study, 20 patients having a clinical energy-integrating detector (EID) CT were scanned on a PCD-CT system using tin filtration. Images were reviewed by 3 radiologists to evaluate visualization of anatomic structures, diagnostic confidence, and image preference. Artifact severity and image noise were measured. Wilcoxon signed rank was used to test differences between PCD-CT TH and EID-CT images. Results Phantom TH images with tin filtration reduced metal artifacts and had comparable noise (32 HU) to TL images (29 HU) acquired without tin filtration. Visualization scores for the cortex, trabeculae, and implant-trabecular interface from PCD-CT TH images (4.4 ± 0.9, 4.4 ± 1.0, and 4.4 ± 1.0) were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) than EID-CT images (3.3 ± 1.3, 3.3 ± 1.2, and 3.3 ± 1.6). A strong preference was shown for PCD-CT TH images due to improved diagnostic confidence and decreased artifact severity. Noise in PCD-CT TH images (93 ± 41 HU) was significantly lower than that in EID-CT images (133 ± 92 HU, P < 0.05). Conclusions Threshold high images acquired with tin filtration on PCD-CT demonstrated a substantial decrease in metal artifacts and an increase in dose efficiency compared with EID-CT.

AbstractObjectivesBoth projection and dual‐energy (DE)‐based methods have been used for metal artifact reduction (MAR) in CT. The two methods can also be combined. The purpose of this work was to evaluate these three MAR methods using phantom experiments for five types of metal implants.Materials and MethodsFive phantoms representing spine, dental, hip, shoulder, and knee were constructed with metal implants. These phantoms were scanned using both single‐energy (SE) and DE protocols with matched radiation output. The SE data were processed using a projection‐based MAR (iMAR, Siemens) algorithm, while the DE data were processed to generate virtual monochromatic images at high keV (Mono+, Siemens). In addition, the DE images after iMAR were used to generate Mono+ images (DE iMAR Mono+). Artifacts were quantitatively evaluated using CT numbers at different regions of interest. Iodine contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) was evaluated in the spine phantom. Three musculoskeletal radiologists and two neuro‐radiologists independently ranked the artifact reduction.ResultsThe DE Mono+ at high keV resulted in reduced artifacts but also lower iodine CNR. The iMAR method alone caused missing tissue artifacts in dental phantom. DE iMAR Mono+ caused wrong CT numbers in close proximity to the metal prostheses in knee and hip phantoms. All musculoskeletal radiologists ranked SE iMAR > DE iMAR Mono+ > DE Mono+ for knee and hip, while DE iMAR Mono+ > SE iMAR > DE Mono+ for shoulder. Both neuro‐radiologists ranked DE iMAR Mono+ > DE Mono+ > SE iMAR for spine and DE Mono+ > DE iMAR Mono+ > SE iMAR for dental.ConclusionsThe SE iMAR was the best choice for the hip and knee prostheses, while DE Mono+ at high keV was best for dental implants and DE iMAR Mono+ was best for spine and shoulder prostheses. Artifacts were also introduced by MAR algorithms.