4.4 Article

Intracranial involvement in plasmacytomas and multiple myeloma: a pictorial essay

期刊

NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 50, 期 8, 页码 665-674

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-008-0390-x

关键词

digital subtraction; angiography; CT; MRI; multiple myeloma; plasmacytoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction The purpose of this pictorial essay is to increase awareness of the clinical presentation, neuroradiological findings, treatment options, and neuroradiological follow-up of plasmacytomas and multiple myeloma with intracranial growth. Methods This pictorial essay reviews the clinical features and neuroradiological findings in seven patients (four women, three men; age range at diagnosis 62-82 years) followed in two institutions. Six patients, one with IgG-kappa plasmacytoma, and five with IgG-kappa (n= 3), IgG-lambda (n= 1), and nonsecretory (n= 1) multiple myeloma, had been seen over a period of 9 years in one institution, and the other patient with IgG-kappa plasmacytoma had been seen over a period of 3.5 years in the other. Results Intracranial involvement is rare, most frequently resulting from osseous lesions in the cranial vault, skull base, nose, or paranasal sinuses. Primary dural or leptomeningeal involvement is rarer. Some typical findings of a dural and/or osseous plasmacytoma include iso- to hyperdensity on CT scan, T1 equal to high signal intensity and T2 markedly hypointense signal on MRI, and high vascularity possibly documented on intraarterial digital subtraction angiography. However, the neuroradiological findings generally lack specificity, since they are generally no different from those of meningioma, metastasis, lymphoma, dural sarcoma, plasma cell granuloma, infectious meningitis, and leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Conclusion The spectrum of clinical and neuroradiological evaluation shows that intracranial involvement from plasmacytoma and multiple myeloma must be taken into account in the differential diagnosis of cranial osseous and meningeal disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据