Search

Objective: To assess imaging utilization practices across clinical specialists in neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) for the evaluation of symptomatic and asymptomatic children and adults with or without plexiform neurofibromas (PN)., Methods: An institutional review board-exempt survey was administered to medical practitioners caring for individuals with NF1 at the Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis (REiNS) meeting in September 2019. The survey included questions on respondent demographic data (9 questions), type of imaging obtained for asymptomatic (4 questions) and symptomatic (4 questions) people with and without PN, and utilization of diffusion-weighted imaging (2 questions)., Results: Thirty practitioners participated in the survey. Most were academic neuro-oncologists at high-volume (>10 patients/week) NF1 centers. Of 30 respondents, 26 had access to whole-body MRI (WB-MRI). The most common approach to an asymptomatic person without PN was no imaging (adults: 57% [17/30]; children: 50% [15/30]), followed by a screening WB-MRI (adults: 20% [6/30]; children: 26.7% [8/30]). The most common approach to a person with symptoms or known PN was regional MRI (adults: 90% [27/30]; children: 93% [28/30]), followed by WB-MRI (adults: 20% [6/30]; children: 36.7% [11/30]). WB-MRI was most often obtained to evaluate a symptomatic child with PN (37% [11/30])., Conclusions: More than 90% of practitioners indicated they would obtain a regional MRI in a symptomatic patient without known or visible PN. Otherwise, there was little consensus on imaging practices. Given the high prevalence of PN and risk of malignant conversion in this patient population, there is a need to define imaging-based guidelines for optimal clinical care and the design of future clinical trials., (© 2021 American Academy of Neurology.)

Introduction: Patients with Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) develop plexiform neurofibromas (PNF) and cutaneous neurofibromas. These tumors are a major cause of the patient's morbidity and mortality. An influence of estrogen and progesterone on tumor growth has been suggested but reports on growth or malignant transformation of tumors during pregnancy remain anecdotal. The purpose of this study was to quantify growth of cutaneous and plexiform neurofibromas in NF1 patients during pregnancy, and to assess the onset of NF1 related symptoms., Material and Methods: Retrospectively, 13 mothers with NF1 were included and compared to nullipara, nulligravida, age-matched women with NF1. All women received whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before and after pregnancy or after a matched time period. Presence of plexiform and cutaneous neurofibromas was evaluated. PNF were subjected to semi-automated volumetry (MedX). The sum of the longest diameters (SLD) of representative cutaneous neurofibromas was determined for both groups. Clinical symptoms and subjective tumor growth were assessed., Results: PNF were identified in 12/26 women (46.2%). Follow up showed neither new PNF nor a significant difference in growth rate (median tumor-growth/year: pregnant group-0.38% (IQR -1.1-5.4%) vs control group 3.59% (IQR -2.1-5.5%; P = 0.69). Malignant transformation of PNF was not observed. There was a significant growth of cutaneous neurofibromas in both groups (median SLD increase: pregnant group 17mm; P = 0.0026 / control group 12mm; P = 0.0004) The difference in increase of SLD was not significant (P = 0.48). Singular cutaneous neurofibromas in the pregnant group displayed high levels of tumor growth (>20%/year). NF1-associated symptoms and subjective tumor growth were not significantly increased in pregnant patients., Conclusions: Growth of plexiform and cutaneous neurofibromas in pregnant patients is not significantly different compared to non-pregnant patients. Cutaneous neurofibromas show a significant increase in growth over time in both, pregnant and non-pregnant patients and NF1 related clinical symptoms do not significantly aggravate during the course of pregnancy., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objectives: The Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis (REiNS) International Collaboration Whole-Body MRI (WB-MRI) Working Group reviewed the existing literature on WB-MRI, an emerging technology for assessing disease in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2), and schwannomatosis (SWN), to recommend optimal image acquisition and analysis methods to enable WB-MRI as an endpoint in NF clinical trials., Methods: A systematic process was used to review all published data about WB-MRI in NF syndromes to assess diagnostic accuracy, feasibility and reproducibility, and data about specific techniques for assessment of tumor burden, characterization of neoplasms, and response to therapy., Results: WB-MRI at 1.5T or 3.0T is feasible for image acquisition. Short tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequence is used in all investigations to date, suggesting consensus about the utility of this sequence for detection of WB tumor burden in people with NF. There are insufficient data to support a consensus statement about the optimal imaging planes (axial vs coronal) or 2D vs 3D approaches. Functional imaging, although used in some NF studies, has not been systematically applied or evaluated. There are no comparative studies between regional vs WB-MRI or evaluations of WB-MRI reproducibility., Conclusions: WB-MRI is feasible for identifying tumors using both 1.5T and 3.0T systems. The STIR sequence is a core sequence. Additional investigation is needed to define the optimal approach for volumetric analysis, the reproducibility of WB-MRI in NF, and the diagnostic performance of WB-MRI vs regional MRI., (© 2016 American Academy of Neurology.)