4.6 Editorial Material

Congenital Craniofacial Plexiform Neurofibroma in Neurofibromatosis Type 1

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11020218

Keywords

plexiform neurofibroma; neurofibromatosis type I; MRI; target sign

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Different radiographical imaging modalities were used to diagnose and evaluate the condition of a patient with NF1 and PN, biopsy confirmed the diagnosis. NF1 diagnosis at birth remains challenging, with congenital PN recognized in 20% of cases. Early detection of PN progression allowed for necessary life-saving interventions.
We present a case demonstrating the performance of different radiographical imaging modalities in the diagnostic work-up of a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and plexiform neurofibroma (PN). The newborn boy showed an expansive-infiltrative cervical and facial mass presented with macrocrania, craniofacial disfigurement, exophthalmos and glaucoma. A computer tomography (CT) and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed. The CT was fundamental to evaluate the bone dysmorphisms and the MRI was crucial to estimate the mass extension. The biopsy of the lesion confirmed the suspicion of PN, thus allowing the diagnosis of NF1. PN is a variant of neurofibromas, a peripheral nerves sheath tumor typically associated with NF1. Even through currently available improved detection techniques, NF1 diagnosis at birth remains a challenge due to a lack of pathognomonic signs; therefore congenital PN are recognized in 20% of cases. This case highlights the importance of using different radiological methods both for the correct diagnosis and the follow-up of the patient with PN. Thanks to MRI evaluation, it was possible to identify earlier the progressive increasing size of the PN and the possible life threatening evolution in order to perform a tracheostomy to avoid airways compression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available