4.4 Article

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for staging Langerhans cell histiocytosis in children and young adults

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 70, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.30064

关键词

LCH; skeletal survey; staging; WB-MRI; x-ray

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the efficacy of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and radiographic skeletal survey (R-SS) in the initial staging of Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH). The results show that WB-MRI has a higher accuracy in identifying skeletal lesions compared to R-SS, however, clinical and radiology expertise is required to avoid upstaging and overtreatment.
Introduction Radiographic skeletal survey (R-SS) is the standard imaging technique for the initial staging of Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH). Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) has been proposed as an effective, radiation-free alternative. Methods We prospectively assessed patients with LCH followed at three tertiary centers in Italy and Austria. Two national study protocols were independently designed, and data were then pooled to increase the power of their findings. R-SS and WB-MRI were performed at diagnosis and repeated at the follow-up to confirm the nature of the identified lesions and to study their evolution. Results Data from 67 patients were analyzed (52 from Italy and 15 from Austria). Compared to R-SS, WB-MRI identified 29 additional skeletal lesions in 14 patients (including two false-positive lesions). Two skeletal lesions were detected at R-SS and missed at WB-MRI (false negative). Per-lesion sensitivity rates were 78.6% (95% CI: 71.0-85.9) for R-SS and 98.4% (95% CI: 94.4-99.8) for WB-MRI, respectively. Based on WB-MRI findings, six patients would have been upstaged to a higher risk class than staging with R-SS. Conclusions WB-MRI had a significantly higher detection rate for skeletal lesions compared to R-SS. Clinical and radiology expertise is required to avoid upstaging and overtreatment.

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