Characterization of Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors with 3T Proton MR Spectroscopy

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. Kransdorf MJ,
   2. Murphey MD,
   3. Smith SE

   . Imaging of soft tissue neoplasms in the adult: benign tumors. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 1999;3:21–38

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Murphey MD,
   2. Kransdorf MJ,
   3. Smith SE

   . Imaging of soft tissue neoplasms in the adult: malignant tumors. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 1999;3:39–58

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Jee WH,
   2. Oh SN,
   3. McCauley T,
   4. et al

   . Extraaxial neurofibromas versus neurilemmomas: discrimination with MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:629–33

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   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
6. 6.↵
   1. Li CS,
   2. Huang GS,
   3. Wu HD,
   4. et al

   . Differentiation of soft tissue benign and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors with magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Imaging 2008;32:121–27

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Matsumine A,
   2. Kusuzaki K,
   3. Nakamura T,
   4. et al

   . Differentiation between neurofibromas and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors in neurofibromatosis 1 evaluated by MRI. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2009;135:891–900

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   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
9. 9.↵
   1. Bensaid B,
   2. Giammarile F,
   3. Mognetti T,
   4. et al

   . Utility of 18 FDG positron emission tomography in detection of sarcomatous transformation in neurofibromatosis type 1. Ann Dermatol Venereol 2007;134:735–41

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Bredella MA,
    2. Torriani M,
    3. Hornicek F,
    4. et al

    . Value of PET in the assessment of patients with neurofibromatosis type 1. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:928–35

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Ferner RE,
    2. Golding JF,
    3. Smith M,
    4. et al

    . [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) as a diagnostic tool for neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) associated malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours (MPNSTs): a long-term clinical study. Ann Oncol 2008;19:390–94

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Karabatsou K,
    2. Kiehl TR,
    3. Wilson DM,
    4. et al

    . Potential role of 18fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in differentiating benign neurofibroma from malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor associated with neurofibromatosis 1. Neurosurgery 2009;65:A160–70

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Warbey VS,
    2. Ferner RE,
    3. Dunn JT,
    4. et al

    . [18F]FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours in neurofibromatosis type-1. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36:751–57

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    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
15. 15.↵
    1. Hascalik S,
    2. Celik O,
    3. Erdem G,
    4. et al

    . Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy findings of a sacrococcygeal schwannoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16 Suppl 1:344–48

    CrossRef
16. 16.↵
    1. Qi ZH,
    2. Li CF,
    3. Li ZF,
    4. et al

    . Preliminary study of 3T 1H MR spectroscopy in bone and soft tissue tumors. Chin Med J (Engl) 2009;122:39–43

    PubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Lee CW,
    2. Lee JH,
    3. Kim DH,
    4. et al

    . Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of musculoskeletal lesions at 3 T with metabolite quantification. Clin Imaging 2010;34:47–52

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Subhawong TK,
    2. Wang X,
    3. Durand DJ,
    4. et al

    . Proton MR spectroscopy in metabolic assessment of musculoskeletal lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:162–72

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Wang CK,
    2. Li CW,
    3. Hsieh TJ,
    4. et al

    . Characterization of bone and soft-tissue tumors with in vivo 1H MR spectroscopy: initial results. Radiology 2004;232:599–605

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Fayad LM,
    2. Wang X,
    3. Salibi N,
    4. et al

    . A feasibility study of quantitative molecular characterization of musculoskeletal lesions by proton MR spectroscopy at 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:W69–75

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Fayad LM,
    2. Bluemke DA,
    3. McCarthy EF,
    4. et al

    . Musculoskeletal tumors: use of proton MR spectroscopic imaging for characterization. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23:23–28

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Fayad LM,
    2. Barker PB,
    3. Jacobs MA,
    4. et al

    . Characterization of musculoskeletal lesions on 3-T proton MR spectroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1513–20

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Fayad LM,
    2. Barker PB,
    3. Bluemke DA

    . Molecular characterization of musculoskeletal tumors by proton MR spectroscopy. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2007;11:240–45

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Benz MR,
    2. Czernin J,
    3. Dry SM,
    4. et al

    . Quantitative F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography accurately characterizes peripheral nerve sheath tumors as malignant or benign. Cancer 2010;116:451–58

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Bonekamp D,
    2. Smith MA,
    3. Zhu H,
    4. et al

    . Quantitative SENSE-MRSI of the human brain. Magn Reson Imaging 2010;28:305–13

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Natt O,
    2. Bezkorovaynyy V,
    3. Michaelis T,
    4. et al

    . Use of phased array coils for a determination of absolute metabolite concentrations. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:3–8

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Fayad LM,
    2. Salibi N,
    3. Wang X,
    4. et al

    . Quantification of muscle choline concentrations by proton MR spectroscopy at 3 T: technical feasibility. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:W73–79

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Perrin RG,
    2. Guha A

    . Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2004;15:203–16

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Kransdorf MJ

    . Malignant soft-tissue tumors in a large referral population: distribution of diagnoses by age, sex, and location. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:129–34

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    1. Glunde K,
    2. Artemov D,
    3. Penet MF,
    4. et al

    . Magnetic resonance spectroscopy in metabolic and molecular imaging and diagnosis of cancer. Chem Rev 2010;110:3043–59

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    1. Thomas L,
    2. Richards M,
    3. Mort M,
    4. et al

    . Assessment of the potential pathogenicity of missense mutations identified in the GTPase-activating protein (GAP)-related domain of the neurofibromatosis type-1 (NF1) gene. Hum Mutat 2012;33:1687–96

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    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
33. 33.↵
    1. Murphey MD,
    2. Smith WS,
    3. Smith SE,
    4. et al

    . From the archives of the AFIP. Imaging of musculoskeletal neurogenic tumors: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 1999;19:1253–80

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science