Underreporting of spinal epidural lipomatosis: A retrospective analysis of lumbosacral MRI examinations from different radiological settings.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the rate with which radiologists reported spinal epidural lipomatosis (SEL) when interpreting lumbosacral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 450 lumbosacral MRI examinations obtained in 450 patients were included (199 men, 251 women; mean age, 56.7 ± 13.5 [SD] years; age range: 18-91 years).  Three senior radiologists assessed and classified independently SEL on MRI according to the Borré grading system (Grade 1 to Grade 3). Depiction of SEL on MRI reports (i. e., reporting rate) and association with patients' symptoms were verified. RESULTS: SEL was found in 75/450 patients (prevalence = 16.7%), and classified as grade-1 (mild) in 49/75 (65.3%) patients, grade-2 (moderate) in 24/75 (32%), and grade-3 (severe) in 2/75 (2.7%). SEL was diagnosed on MRI report in 6/75 (8%) patients. SEL prevalence based on MRI reports was 1.3% (6/450), significantly lower than its actual prevalence based on MRI examinations (P < 0.0001). The reporting rate was 0% in grade-1 (0/19), 10.2% in grade-2 (5/49) and 50.0% in grade-3 (1/2), and variable on the radiologist subspecialty (10.0% among musculoskeletal radiologists, 11.1% among neuroradiologists, and 3.7% among generalists). SEL was considered as the only cause of symptoms in 7/75 patients (9.3%) and a concurrent cause in 9/75 (12%). CONCLUSION: SEL reporting rate is extremely low, leading to an important underestimation of disease prevalence. SEL diagnosis and grading should be refined to improve reports quality and subsequently patient care.

MRI Features and Clinical Significance of Spinal Epidural Lipomatosis: All You Should Know.

Spinal epidural lipomatosis (SEL) is defined as the abnormal accumulation of unencapsulated adipose tissue in the spinal epidural space. SEL can be asymptomatic or can cause a wide range of symptoms, the most common of which is neurogenic claudication. Several other neurological manifestations may also occur, above all myelopathy and radicular symptoms. The spinal level most frequently involved in patients with SEL is the lumbar one, followed by the thoracic one. Imaging plays a key role in the disease assessment. MRI is considered the most effective and sensitive modality for diagnosing and staging SEL. Anyway, also CT scan can diagnose SEL. The diagnosis may be incidental (in mild-moderate disease) or may be taken into account in cases with neurological symptoms (in moderate-severe disease). There are some recognized risk factors for SEL, the most common of which are exogenous steroid use and obesity. Recent studies have found an association between SEL and obesity, hyperlipidemia and liver fat deposition. As a matter of fact, SEL can be considered the spinal hallmark of metabolic syndrome. Risk factors control represents the initial treatment strategy in patients with SEL (e.g. weight loss, steroid therapy suspension). Surgical decompression may be required when conservative treatment fails or when the patient develops acute/severe neurological symptoms.

Skeletal Survey in Multiple Myeloma: Role of Imaging.

Bone disease is the hallmark of multiple myeloma. Skeletal lesions are evaluated to establish the diagnosis, to choose the therapies and also to assess the response to treatments. Due to this, imaging procedures play a key role in the management of multiple myeloma. For decades, conventional radiography has been the standard imaging modality. Subsequently, advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma have increased the need for an accurate evaluation of skeletal disease. The introduction of new high performant imaging tools, such as whole-body lowdose computed tomography, different types of magnetic resonance imaging studies, and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, replaced the conventional radiography. In this review, we analyze the diagnostic potentials, indications of use, and applications of the imaging tools nowadays available. Whole-body low-dose CT should be considered as the imaging modality of choice for the initial assessment of multiple myeloma lytic bone lesions. MRI is the gold-standard for the detection of bone marrow involvement, while PET/CT is the preferred technique in the assessment of response to therapy. Both MRI and PET/CT are able to provide prognostic information.

Vertebral Fractures of Unknown Origin: Role of Computed Tomography-Guided Biopsy.

BACKGROUND: We performed a retrospective evaluation of histological and imaging results of patients submitted to computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsy for vertebral fractures (VFs) of unknown etiology to evaluate the pathological causes of fractures and also to observe the diagnostic results of imaging studies available. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all the CT-guided vertebral biopsies performed in our institution in the last 2 years, selecting patients with VF of unknown etiology. We reviewed clinical records, imaging studies, and histological examination results. We compared diagnostic performance of the 2 most sensitive imaging modalities for detection of malignancy on the collapsed vertebral body: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography-CT (PET-CT). Anatomopathological results have been considered the gold standard to assess the diagnostic performance of imaging studies. Age stratification has been performed to understand the distribution of different anatomopathological diagnoses in age groups. RESULTS: Among 282 CT-guided vertebral biopsies, 36 (12.8%) have been performed to diagnose the etiology of VF of unknown origin. In 26/32 (81.3%), the vertebral biopsy was diagnostic: 8 osteopenia, 6 multiple myelomas, 4 osteomyelitis, 2 eosinophilic granuloma, 3 metastases, 1 mastocytosis, 1 Paget's disease, and 1 dysmielopoiesis. In 6 cases, the anatomopathological diagnosis was normal bone structure, most likely excluding malignancy. There were no statistically significance differences between MRI and PET-CT results (P = 1.0000). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple myeloma and osteopenia represent the most frequent causes of this condition in adult patients, while eosinophilic granuloma and osteomyelitis in pediatric patients. Computed tomography-guided biopsy permits one to reach diagnosis in most of cases. Both PET and MRI could be insufficient to discriminate benign from malignant causes of fractures. Computed tomography-guided biopsy is needed when the etiology of fracture remains unclear.

A Comparison of Different Staging Systems for Multiple Myeloma: Can the MRI Pattern Play a Prognostic Role?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the most recent systems for the staging of multiple myeloma (MM), the Durie-Salmon PLUS system and the International Staging System, according to patients' survival rates and response to therapy. Another objective is to verify whether patterns of bone marrow alteration on MRI (i.e., focal, diffuse, or variegated patterns) can provide prognostic information for patients with MM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 85 patients with MM who were monitored for a minimum of 6 years and who underwent contrast-enhanced spinal and pelvic MRI at 1.5 T and whole-body FDG PET/CT at the time of diagnosis. Patients underwent MM staging performed using both staging systems and were divided into groups on the basis of their MRI patterns. These patient groups were then compared in terms of survival, response to therapy, and duration of response. RESULTS: Both staging systems showed great capability in differentiating patients with a worse prognosis from patients with a better outcome, with the capability of both systems found to be statistically significant, albeit less statistically significant for the Durie-Salmon PLUS system (p = 0.010 vs p = 0.046, respectively). Patients with a focal pattern on MRI had a worse survival rate than did the patients with other MRI patterns (p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: These data indicate that both the International Staging System and the Durie-Salmon PLUS system have great potential for characterizing and stratifying MM to determine the survival outcome and therapy response of patients. Observation of a focal pattern on MRI seems to be associated with poorer survival.

Ultrasound: Which role in body composition?

Ultrasound is a non-invasive, fast, relatively inexpensive and available tool for estimating adiposity in clinical practice, and in several research settings. It does not expose patients to ionizing radiation risks, making the method ideal for the evaluation, and for follow-up studies. Several parameters and indexes based on adipose tissue thickness have been introduced and tested, and these have been correlated with clinical and laboratoristic parameters. Moreover, ultrasound can also be directed to the estimation of adipose tissue and intracellular fat indirectly, at cellular-molecular level: an opportunity for many radiologists who already and sometimes unconsciously perform "body composition" assessment when looking at the liver, at muscle as well as at other organs. However, standardized procedure and parameters are needing to improve accuracy and reproducibility. The purposes of this review are: 1) to provide a complete overview of the most used and shared measurements of adiposity; 2) to analyze technical conditions, accuracy, and clinical meaning of ultrasound in the study of body composition; 3) to provide some elements for the use of ultrasound in the evaluation of intra-cellular lipids accumulation, in two hot spots: liver and skeletal muscle.

The role of ultrasonography in the evaluation of abdominal fat: analysis of technical and methodological issues.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Ultrasonography (US) is becoming popular for the assessment of adiposity, but no one has studied this tool in the light of its potential limitations. Our purpose was to investigate the impact of technical conditions on the evaluation of abdominal fat by US. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five healthy males and 45 healthy females were consecutively enrolled in the study, randomly assigned to three groups equally distributed by sex, and examined accordingly to three technical points: fasting state (before and after meal [A]), breathing (expiration and inspiration [B]), and US equipment from different generations: 2003 and 1998 (C). Two blinded radiologists performed US in the these opposite conditions, acquiring five parameters representative of subcutaneous and visceral adiposity in two times. Student's t-test and Lin's correlation coefficient were used for statistical analysis to assess differences in the measures as well as in inter- and intra-observer agreements. RESULTS: The maximum and the only statistically significant changes were observed for intra-abdominal fat thickness regarding fasting state and breathing (Δ% = 24.1 ± 21.3 and Δ% = 9.2 ± 20.4, respectively; P < .0001). Reproducibility and repeatability, especially for visceral fat, were proved more stable in the following conditions: fasting state, expiration, and newer machine (2003). CONCLUSION: This article provides essential information and "range of confidence" for variations that can be expected from using different conditions in the measurement of abdominal adiposity by US to be carefully addressed as well as considered by US users and by researchers involving this technique in the field of body composition.

Accuracy, reproducibility and repeatability of ultrasonography in the assessment of abdominal adiposity.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Despite improvements in the methods used in body composition analysis, some goals remain far from clinical practice. Among them, the most important is the quantification of intra-abdominal adipose tissue. Fat distribution is a key point in the assessment of cardiovascular and metabolic risk status. The aim of this study was to define the accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of ultrasonography in the evaluation of abdominal adiposity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six nonobese patients (group A) who underwent computed tomographic (CT) abdominal imaging and 29 obese patients (group B) were enrolled. Patients from both groups were independently evaluated using ultrasound by three radiologists; computed tomography-like conditions were reproduced, and six main parameters of subcutaneous and internal adiposity were measured (as well as three derived indexes) with both linear and convex probes. In group A, the same measurements were also obtained on CT images. Time spent for every ultrasound session was recorded. Results were analyzed using Lin's concordance correlation (ρ), intraclass correlation, and linear regression analysis (and analysis of variance). RESULTS: Three patients were excluded from group A after CT scans because of technical problems. Mesenteric fat thickness did not show significant correlations and reliability. Strong correlations between ultrasound and CT measurements were observed for all other visceral and subcutaneous parameters (ρ = 0.85-0.96). Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was excellent in both groups (repeatability: ρ = 0.83-0.99 for group A, ρ = 0.90-0.99 for group B; reproducibility: intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.90-0.99 for groups A and B). The mean time spent was 95 ± 21 seconds for group A (mean body mass index, 27.4 ± 2.4 kg/m(2)) and 129 ± 33 seconds for group B (mean body mass index, 37.3 ± 11.9 kg/m(2)). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound is accurate, reproducible, and fast in the analysis of abdominal adiposity. It offers a regional, easy, and close-at-hand evaluation of subcutaneous and visceral fat compartments. This should be taken into consideration when clinical routine examinations are performed or to evaluate patients with specific metabolic diseases before and after treatment.