Multiparametric MRI findings of sinonasal rhabdomyosarcoma in adults with comparison to carcinoma

Abstract

Purpose: To identify magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of sinonasal rhabdomyosarcoma in adults, including diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI features as compared with carcinomas. Materials and Methods: Sixty-four patients were included in this study, including 12 sinonasal rhabdomyosarcomas and 52 sinonasal carcinomas. MRI was completed in all 64 patients with a 3T MR scanner. Conventional MR (nonenhanced and static contrast-enhanced) imaging features, DCE-MRI parameters, and the apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) were analyzed by two authors independently (X.Y.W. and Y.Z.W.). Results: Compared with gray matter, sinonasal rhabdomyosarcomas appeared isointense on T1-weighted images in 11 cases (91.7%, 11 of 12), and hyperintense on T2-weighted images in 9 patients (75%, 9 of 12). After contrast, sinonasal rhabdomyosarcomas showed inhomogeneous enhancement in 10 cases (83.3%, 10 of 12). Skull involvement was found in eight patients (66.7%) with rhabdomyosarcomas. On T2-weighted images, sinonasal carcinomas demonstrated isointense in 31 cases (59.6%, 31/52), hyperintense in 14 (26.9%, 14/52), and hypointense in 7 (13.5%, 7/52). Skull involvement was detected in 14 cases (14/52, 26.9%). There were significant differences in T2 signal intensity (P = 0.005) and skull involvement (P = 0.016) between sinonasal rhabdomyosarcoma and carcinomas. There was a marginal difference in time to peak enhancement (P = 0.061), while no difference in time to maximum enhancement (P = 0.403), maximum contrast index (P = 0.368), and time–intensity curve types (P = 0.138) between rhabdomyosarcoma and carcinomas. The ADCs of sinonasal rhabdomyosarcoma were significantly lower than those of sinonasal carcinomas (P < 0.001). Conclusion: A multiparametric approach using conventional MRI with added ADCs had the potential to improve the diagnostic accuracy of sinonasal rhabdomyosarcoma in adults. Evidence level: 4. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:998–1004.