4.6 Article

The characteristics of 76 atypical neurofibromas as precursors to neurofibromatosis 1 associated malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors

Journal

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages 818-825

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noy013

Keywords

atypical neurofibroma; neurofibromatosis 1; malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. NCI
  3. Center for Cancer Research Intramural Research Program
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZIABC010801, ZIABC011427] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) leads to the development of benign and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST). MPNST have been described to develop in preexisting benign plexiform neurofibromas (PN) and have a poor prognosis. Atypical neurofibromas (ANF) were recently described as precursor lesions for MPNST, making early detection and management of ANF a possible strategy to prevent MPNST. We aimed to clinically characterize ANF and identify management approaches. Methods: We analyzed clinical, imaging, and pathology findings of all patients with NF1 and ANF at 3 institutions. Results: Sixty-three patients had 76 ANF (32M/31F; median age 27.1 y). On MRI, most ANF appeared as distinct nodular lesions and were F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) avid. Forty-six ANF were associated with pain, 19 with motor weakness, 45 were palpable or visible, and 13 had no clinical signs. Completely resected ANF (N = 57) have not recurred (median follow-up, 4.1 y; range, 0-14 y). Four ANF transformed into MPNST and 17 patients had a history of MPNST in a different location than was their ANF. Conclusions: Growth of distinct nodular lesions, pain, and FDG-PET avidity should raise concern for ANF in NF1. Patients with ANF are at greater risk for development of MPNST. Complete resection of ANF may prevent development of MPNST.

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