Imaging features of phosphaturic mesenchymal tumors
To examine the CT and MR imaging features of phosphaturic mesenchymal tumors (PMTs).
Materials and methods
With IRB approval, our institutional radiology/pathology database was reviewed for pathologically-proven PMTs. CT and MRI examinations were reviewed in consensus noting several imaging features, and if available, comparative molecular imaging tests were analyzed.
We identified 39 patients (21 male, 18 females) with 40 PMTs [mean age, 52.9 ± 14.9 years (range, 14–78)], including 20 bone and 20 soft tissue lesions. Mean maximal lesion diameter was 3.4 ± 2.0 cm (range, 1.1–9.8). 12/18 primary bone lesions (66.6%) were osteolytic and 15/20 (75.0%) had a narrow zone of transition. Internal matrix was present in 18/32 (56.3%) lesions. PMTs were most commonly T1 isointense (31/37, 83.8%), T2 hyperintense (14/36, 38.9%), and solidly enhancing (21/30, 70.0%). The majority (32/36, 88.9%) contained areas of dark T2 signal. 8/9 PMTs were positive by 99mTc-sestamibi scintigraphy, 2/4 by 111In-pentetreotide scintigraphy, 2/2 by 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and 11/13 by 18F-FDG PET/CT. On FDG PET/CT, the mean SUVmax was 4.1 ± 2.5 (range, 1.5–10.8).
Osseous PMTs are commonly osteolytic with a narrow zone of transition. Both bone and soft tissue PMTs often contain matrix and areas of dark T2 signal on MRI, independent of the presence of matrix. However, PMTs may mimic other bone and soft tissue neoplasms, including fibrous dysplasia, tenosynovial giant cell tumor, and even atypical lipomatous tumor. As such, clinical presentation and laboratory correlation are critical to PMT recognition and accurate diagnosis.
KeywordsPMT Phosphaturic mesenchymal tumor CT MRI PET/CT
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
The need for informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
- 1.Kumar R, Folpe AL, Mullan BP. Tumor-induced osteomalacia. Transl Endocrinol Metab 2015;7(3):1871.Google Scholar
- 3.Prader A, Illig R, Uehlinger RE, Stalder G. Rachitis infolge knochentumors (rickets caused by bone tumors). Helv Pediatr Acta. 1959;14:554–65.Google Scholar
- 8.CDM F. WHO classification of tumours of soft tissue and bone. Lyon: IARC Press; 2013.Google Scholar
- 10.Woo VL, Landesberg R, Imel EA, Singer SR, Folpe AL, Econs MJ, et al. Phosphaturic mesenchymal tumor, mixed connective tissue variant, of the mandible: report of a case and review of the literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;108(6):925–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.Agaimy A, Michal M, Chiosea S, Petersson F, Hadravsky L, Kristiansen G, et al. Phosphaturic mesenchymal tumors: clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical and molecular analysis of 22 cases expanding their morphologic and immunophenotypic spectrum. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41(10):1371–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Sent-Doux KN, Mackinnon C, Lee JC, Folpe AL, Habeeb O. Phosphaturic mesenchymal tumor without osteomalacia: additional confirmation of the “non-phosphaturic” variant, with emphasis on the roles of FGF23 chromogenic in situ hybridization and FN1-FGFR1 fluorescence in situ hybridization. Hum Pathol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2018.02.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar