Whole body MRI with DWI in people with NF1 and Schwannomatosis: Are qualitative and quantitative imaging features of peripheral lesions comparable to localized MRI?

Abstract

PurposeTo compare the qualitative and quantitative features of peripheral lesions on localized (L) and whole-body (WB) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in people with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and schwannomatosis. Materials and methodsThis is a retrospective, HIPAA compliant study with twenty-seven patients (14 women, 13 men; mean age (years): 38 (3–67)) who underwent both L-MRI and WB-MRI without interval treatment. WB-MRI and L-MRI were comprised of T1-weighted, fat suppressed (FS) T2-weighted or short tau inversion recovery (STIR), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) using b-values of 50, 400, and 800 s/mm2, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping and pre- and post-contrast FST1 sequences. Two readers recorded qualitative (T1 and T2/STIR signal intensity and heterogeneity, contrast enhancement and heterogeneity, perilesional enhancement, presence of a target sign and perilesional edema) and quantitative (size, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), ADC) features of peripheral lesions on L-MRI and WB-MRI.Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar’s test were used. ResultsThere were 31 peripheral lesions identified in 27 subjects, (mean size: 3.1 cm (range: 1–8.1 cm) on both L-MRI and WB-MRI).There were no differences in T1 signal and heterogeneity and T2/STIR signal and heterogeneity between WB-MRI and L-MRI ((p = 0.180, 0.083, 0.317 and 0.157 respectively). There were also no differences in contrast enhancement, heterogeneity and perilesional enhancement between WB-MRI and L-MRI (p = 1.000, 0.380 and 1.000 respectively). Presence of a target sign and perilesional edema did not differ between WB-MRI and L-MRI (p = 1.000 and 0.500 respectively). Craniocaudal (CC), mediolateral (ML) and anteroposterior (AP) size measurements on WB-MRI did not differ from CC, ML and AP size measurements on L-MRI (p = 0.597, 0.128 and 0.783 respectively). SNR on WB-DWI did not differ from SNR on L-DWI for b50, b400 and b800 images (p = 0.285, 0.166, and 0.974 respectively), and CNR on WB-DWI did not differ from CNR on L-DWI for b50, b400 and b800 images (p = 0.600, 0.124, and 0.787 respectively). There was no significant difference in minimum, mean and maximum ADC values between WB-DWI and L-DWI (p = 0.234, 0.481, and 0.441 respectively). Median minimum, mean and maximum ADC (×10(-3)mm(2)/s) differences between WB-DWI and L-DWI were 0.0 (range −1 to 0.7), 0.0 (range −0.5 to 0.6), and 0.1 (range −1.2 to 0.8) respectively. Relative ADC difference averages were 29.1% for minimum values, 10.1% for mean values, and 14.8% for maximum values. ConclusionWB-MRI yields qualitative and quantitative features for peripheral lesions, including DWI and ADC measurements, that are comparable to L-MRI scans. WB-DWI can be reliably used for the assessment of peripheral nerve sheath tumors, obviating the need for a repeat follow-up L-DWI acquisition.