Article

Can CT Features Differentiate Between Inferior Vena Cava Leiomyosarcomas and Primary Retroperitoneal Masses?

Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Box 0628, M-372, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
American Journal of Roentgenology (Impact Factor: 2.74). 01/2013; 200(1):205-9. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.7476
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of our study was to evaluate and describe CT features that may differentiate inferior vena cava (IVC) leiomyosarcomas from primary retroperitoneal masses.
A records search revealed 18 CT examinations with a soft-tissue mass contacting the IVC. Three readers evaluated the scans for four signs: an imperceptible IVC at the interface with the mass; a "positive embedded organ" sign (IVC embedded in the periphery of the mass); a "negative embedded organ" sign (IVC compressed at the perimeter of the mass); and tumor in the IVC lumen. CT findings were compared with pathology and operative reports. Performance and significance of CT features and interobserver agreement were calculated.
Four of 18 (22%) retroperitoneal masses were IVC leiomyosarcomas. The IVC was imperceptible at the interface with the mass in three of the four (75%) IVC leiomyosarcomas (κ = 0.88) and in no alternate diagnosis (p < 0.02). No IVC leiomyosarcoma showed a positive embedded organ sign versus one of 14 masses of alternate origin (p = 1.0, κ = 0.56). The negative embedded organ sign was seen in most primary retroperitoneal masses (11/14 or 79%, κ = 0.85) but in no case of IVC leiomyosarcoma (p = 0.01). Intraluminal tumor was seen in one of four (25%) IVC leiomyosarcomas and in two of 14 other retroperitoneal masses (p = 1.0, κ = 1.0).
An imperceptible IVC at the point of maximal contact with a retroperitoneal mass was the most useful CT feature for predicting the origin of IVC leiomyosarcoma. A negative embedded organ sign was useful for excluding IVC origin. Knowledge of these CT features may assist with preoperative planning.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
74 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Peritoneal carcinomatosis and metastatic involvement of the retroperitoneum are manifestations of many organ-based malignancies and lymphoproliferative disorders. Primary malignancies of peritoneal and retroperitoneal origin occur much less frequently, and are difficult to distinguish from metastatic disease on imaging alone. However, the imaging features of these primary tumors, taken in concert with the clinical data, can be helpful in narrowing the scope of the differential diagnosis. This review presents the clinical and imaging features of primary peritoneal and retroperitoneal tumors arising from the various tissue components that comprise the ligaments, mesenteries, and connective tissues of the peritoneal and retroperitoneal spaces.
    Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America 10/2014; 23(4). DOI:10.1016/j.soc.2014.06.003 · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Retroperitoneal sarcomas are rare tumours. The objective of this article is to propose management guidelines. A review of the literature was performed using the PubMed search engine (1985-2013) with the key words: retroperitoneal sarcoma, prognosis, recurrence, surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy. Chest, abdomen and pelvis computed tomography is the reference examination. Other examinations are optional. PET scan is not indicated for the primary diagnosis. CT-guided retroperitoneal biopsy is recommended and must be systematically performed before any management of a suspicious retroperitoneal mass. All retroperitoneal sarcomas must be registered and presented to a multidisciplinary consultation meeting devoted to the management of sarcomas (regional meetings) prior to any therapeutic intervention. Treatment is essentially surgical and is primarily designed to achieve negative surgical margins (R0). Neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy can be proposed depending on the risk of progression and the resectability. The recurrence rate is related to tumour grade and surgical margins. The final prognosis is intimately related to the quality of initial management and the number of cases treated by each centre. Retroperitoneal sarcomas have a poor prognosis. The quality of initial management directly impacts recurrence-free survival and overall survival. The prognosis is improved by multidisciplinary management conducted in a reference centre.
    Progrès en Urologie 11/2013; 23 Suppl 2:S161-6. DOI:10.1016/S1166-7087(13)70053-8 · 0.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to present the most recent advances in the diagnosis of the more common leiomyosarcoma (LMS) anatomic variants, potentially useful prognostic markers that have recently been identified and the systemic approaches currently used or under evaluation to improve the outcome of patients with this disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the last few years emphasis has been placed on incorporating effective imaging tools and using pathological biomarkers in the diagnostic workup of LMS. Moreover, efforts are being made to identify meaningful prognostic and predictive parameters that will aid the development of effective novel therapeutics. The number of systemic therapies available to treat LMS has increased over the last decade, but the selection of systemic therapy is not based on the anatomic origin of LMS. SUMMARY: Currently, the only curative option in LMS is surgery and despite progress in systemic therapy the outcome of patients with advanced/metastatic disease remains poor. Better understanding of the underlying biology of the LMS variants, improved diagnostics and more effective, less toxic therapeutic agents are required.
    Current opinion in oncology 04/2013; 25(4). DOI:10.1097/CCO.0b013e3283622c77 · 3.76 Impact Factor