Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24763412›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2014

Conventional and functional MR imaging of peripheral nerve sheath tumors: initial experience.

S Demehri, A Belzberg, J Blakeley, L M Fayad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Primary Pathology of the Parapharyngeal Space.Clinical neuroradiology · 2023
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

S DemehriFrom The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (S.D., L.M.F.) demehri2001@yahoo.com.
A BelzbergDepartment of Neurosurgery (A.B.), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
J BlakeleyThe Johns Hopkins Hospital Comprehensive Neurofibromatosis Center (J.B.), Department of Neurology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
L M FayadFrom The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (S.D., L.M.F.).

Funding

Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAM George NELSON · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeDifferentiating benign from malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors can be very challenging using conventional MR imaging. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that conventional and functional MR imaging can accurately diagnose malignancy in patients with indeterminate peripheral nerve sheath tumors. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study retrospectively reviewed 61 consecutive patients with 80 indeterminate peripheral nerve sheath tumors. Of these, 31 histologically proved peripheral nerve sheath tumors imaged with conventional (unenhanced T1, fluid-sensitive, contrast-enhanced T1-weighted sequences) and functional MR imaging (DWI/apparent diffusion coefficient mapping, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging) were included. Two observers independently assessed anatomic (size, morphology, signal) and functional (ADC values, early arterial enhancement by dynamic contrast-enhanced MR) features to determine interobserver agreement. The accuracy of MR imaging for differentiating malignant from benign was also determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis.

resultsOf 31 peripheral nerve sheath tumors, there were 9 malignant (9%) and 22 benign ones (81%). With anatomic sequences, average tumor diameter (6.3 ± 1.8 versus 3.9 ± 2.3 mm, P = .009), ill-defined/infiltrative margins (77% versus 32%; P = .04), and the presence of peritumoral edema (66% versus 23%, P = .01) were different for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors and benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors. With functional sequences, minimum ADC (0.47 ± 0.32 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s versus 1.08 ± 0.26 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; P < .0001) and the presence of early arterial enhancement (50% versus 11%; P = .03) were different for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors and benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors. The minimum ADC (area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.97) and the average tumor diameter (area under the curve = 0.8; 95% CI, 0.66-0.94) were accurate in differentiating malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors from benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors. With threshold values for minimum ADC ≤ 1.0 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s and an average diameter of ≥4.2 cm, malignancy could be diagnosed with 100% sensitivity (95% CI, 66.4%-100%).

conclusionsAverage tumor diameter and minimum ADC values are potentially important parameters that may be used to distinguish malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors from benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors.

Indexed as

AdultAgedArea Under CurveFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNerve Sheath NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24763412
PMCPMC4332811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.