ELASTOFIBROMA DORSI: PREVALENCE AND IMAGING FEATURES ON MULTI DETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

Year 2017, Volume: 50 Issue: 1, 26 - 31, 01.09.2017

Elif Gündoğdu

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Objective:
The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence
and radiological characteristics of elastofibroma dorsi detected incidentally by
thoracic multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).

Material and
Methods: 1674 thoracic CT examinations were evaluated. CT examinations were
performed using 16-slices CT scanner. In patients with detected mass(es) the dimensions and marginal and
internal radiological characteristics, whether the mass was unilateral or
bilateral and consequently the affected site in unilateral cases were recorded.
The enhancement patterns of the lesions were evaluated in the studies with
contrast agent administration.

Results: Elastofibroma
dorsi was detected in 88 (5,3%) of 1649 patients. Statistically the detection
rate for the entity was significantly higher in female patients (p<0.001). The mean age of the patients without elastofibroma
dorsi was significantly lower than the mean age of the patients with entity
(p<0.001). The frequency of bilateral elastofibroma dorsi was found to be
significantly higher than that of unilateral disease (p=0.002). No
significant difference was detected between the frequencies of right- and
left-sided elastofibroma dorsi (p=0.046). Out of 19 lesions detected, 12 (63,2%) did not
show any contrast enhancement,
whereas 5 (26,3%) had mild and 2 (10,5%) had moderate degree of contrast
enhancement .

Conclusion: The detection rate of incidental lesions has
considerably increased in parallel with the improvements in imaging technology.
MDCT enables identifying
the typical imaging features of elastofibroma dorsi which might preclude the
need for the use of advanced imaging tools, tissue sampling and
histopathological analysis for making a proper differential diagnosis.

Keywords:
Prevalence,
elastofibroma dorsi, multi detector computed tomography.

ÖZET

Amaç:
Bu
çalışmanın amacı, toraks multidetektör bilgisayarlı tomografi (MDBT)
görüntüleme ile rastlantısal olarak saptanan elastofibroma dorsi’nin prevalansının
ve görüntüleme özelliklerinin belirlenmesiydi.

Gereç
ve Yöntemler : 1674 toraks BT incelemesi
değerlendirildi. BT incelemeleri 16 kesitli BT tarayıcısı kullamılarak yapıldı.
Kitle saptanan hastalarda kitlenin boyutları, kenar ve iç yapıların radyolojik
özellikleri, kitlenin tek taraflı veya çift taraflı olma durumu ve tek taraflı
kitlelerde tutulum görülen bölge kaydedildi. Kontrast madde uygulaması yapılan tetkiklerde
kontrastlanma paterni değerlendirildi. İstatistiksel analiz SPSS 20.0 yazılımı
kullanılarak yapıldı.

Bulgular
: 1649
hastanın 88'inde (% 5,3) elastofibroma dorsi tespit edildi. Kitle tespit oranı
kadın hastalarda istatistiksel olarak belirgin şekilde daha yüksekti (p
<0.001). Elastofibroma dorsi bulunmayan hastaların ortalama yaşı, kitle
bulunan hastaların ortalama yaşından anlamlı derecede düşüktü (p <0.001). İki
taraflı elastofibroma dorsi görülme sıklığı tek taraflı hastalığa göre anlamlı
derecede yüksek bulundu (p = 0.002). Sağ ve sol taraflı elastofibroma dorsi sıklığı
arasında anlamlı fark tespit edilmedi (p = 0.046). Genel olarak, 12 kitle (%
63,2) kontrast tutulumu göstermezken, 5 (% 26,3) lezyonda hafif ve 2 (% 10,5)
lezyonda orta derecede kontrast tutulumu saptandı.

Sonuç:
Görüntüleme
teknolojisindeki gelişmelere paralel olarak rastlantısal lezyonların saptanma
oranı belirgin şekilde artmıştır. MDBT elastofibroma dorsi’nin tipik
görüntüleme özelliklerinin belirlenmesini sağlayarak ayırıcı tanının doğru şekilde yapabilmesi amacıyla ileri görüntüleme araçlarının, doku
örneklemesinin ve histopatolojik analizin kullanılmasına yönelik ihtiyacı
ortadan kaldırabilecektir.

Anahtar
Sözcükler: Prevelans, elastofibroma dorsi, multi
dedektör bilgisayarlı tomografi. 

Keywords

Prevalence, elastofibroma dorsi, multi detector computed tomography

References

• 1. Jarvi O, Saxen AE. Elastofibroma dorsi. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1961;51(suppl 144) : 83–84.
• 2. Brandser EA., Goree JC, El-Khoury GY. Elastofibroma dorsi: prevalence in an elderly patient population as revealed by CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171 :977-980.
• 3. Chang CC, Wu MM, Chao C. Prevalence study of elastofibroma dorsi with retrospective evaluation of computed tomography. Chin J Radiol 2003; 28:367-371.
• 4. Ochsner JE, Sewall SA, Brooks GN, Agni R. Best cases from the AFIP: Elastofibroma dorsi. Radiographics 2006;26 :1873–1876.
• 5. Cota C, Solivetti F, Kovacs D, et al. Elastofibroma dorsi: histologic and echographic considerations. Int J Dermatol 2006;45 :1100-1103.
• 6. Sarici IS, Basbay E, Mustu M, et al. Bilateral elastofibroma dorsi: A case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 2014;5 :1139-1141.
• 7. Daigeler A, Vogt PM, Busch K, et al. Elastofibroma dorsi–differential diagnosis in chest wall tumours. World J Surg Oncol 2007;5 :15.
• 8. Kransdorf MJ, Meis JM, Montgomery E. Elastofibroma: MR and CT appearance with radiologic-pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;159 :575-579.
• 9. Naylor MF, Nascimento AG, Sherrick AD, McLeod RA. Elastofibroma dorsi: radiologic findings in 12 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167 :683-687.
• 10. El Hammoumi M, Qtaibi A, Arsalane A, El Oueriachi F, Kabiri el H. Elastofibroma dorsi: clinicopathological analysis of 76 cases. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;47 :111-116.
• 11. Fang N, Wang YL, Zeng L, et al. Characteristics of elastofibroma dorsi on PET/CT imaging with 18 F-FDG. Clin Imaging 2016;40 :110-113.
• 12. Onishi Y, Kitajima K, Senda M, et al. FDG-PET/CT imaging of elastofibroma dorsi. Skeletal Radiol 2011;40 :849-853.
• 13. Blumenkrantz Y, Bruno GL, González CJ, Namías M, Osorio AR, Parma P. Characterization of Elastofibroma Dorsi with 18FDG PET/CT: a retrospective study. Revista Española de Medicina Nuclear (English Edition) 2011;30 :342-345.
• 14. Davidson T, Goshen E, Eshed I, Goldstein J, Chikman B, Ben-Haim. Incidental detection of elastofibroma dorsi on PET-CT: initial findings and changes in tumor size and standardized uptake value on serial scans. Nuclear Med Commun 2016;37 :837-842.