VALUE OF SIZE, DEPTH, AND SIGNAL ON T2 WEIGHTED IMAGES OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN THE DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS OF BENIGN AND MALIGNANT SOFT TISSUE TUMORS
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the value of size, depth, and signal intensity on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant soft tissue tumors. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional descriptive study on 112 patients with histopathological diagnosis of soft tissue tumors (62 benign, 50 malignant). On MRI, three signs of size (≤ 50mm, > 50mm), depth (superficial or deep) and T2-weighted signal (homogeneous or heterogeneous) were analyzed to determine the ability to predict the benign or malignant soft tissue tumor. Results: Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that size (p = 0.002) and signal heterogeneity on T2W (p = 0.001) were statistically significant different between benign and malignant soft tissue tumors. Depth was not a valuable independent factor in distinguishing these two tumor groups (p = 0.307). The combination of two signs: Size and heterogeneous signal on T2W is useful in differentiating between benign and malignant soft tissue tumors with a sensitivity of 66%, a specificity of 79%, a positive predictive value of 72%, a negative predictive value of 74% and an accuracy of 75%. Conclusion: The combination of two signs: Size and heterogeneous signal on T2WI is useful in differentiating between benign and malignant soft tissue tumors with a sensitivity of 66%, a specificity of 79%, a positive predictive value of 72%, a negative predictive value of 74%, and an accuracy of 75%.
Article Details
Keywords
Soft tissue tumor, Size, Depth, Signal intensity
References
2. Toro JR, Travis LB, Wu HJ and associates. Incidence patterns of soft tissue sarcomas, regardless of primary site, in the surveillance, epidemiology and end results program, 1978-2001: An analysis of 26,758 cases. Int J Cancer. 2006; 119(12):2922-2930.
3. Kransdorf MJ and Murphy MD. Radiologic evaluation of soft-tissue masses: A current perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 175(3):575-587.
4. Gielen JLMA, De Schepper AM, Vanhoenacker F, et al. Accuracy of MRI in characterization of soft tissue tumors and tumor-like lesions. A prospective study in 548 patients. Eur Radiol. 2004; 14(12):2320-2330.
5. 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(2):395-402.
6. Grimer RJ. Size matters for sarcomas!. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2006; 88(6):519-524.
7. Gruber L, Gruber H, Luger AK and associates. Diagnostic hierarchy of radiological features in soft tissue tumours and proposition of a simple diagnostic algorithm to estimate malignant potential of an unknown mass. Eur J Radiol. 2017; 95:102-110.
8. Gruber L, Loizides A, Ostermann L, et al. Does size reliably predict malignancy in soft tissue tumours?. Eur Radiol. 2016; 26(12):4640-4648.