Abstract
Background
Infantile myofibromatosis, a rare soft tissue neoplasm that may present at birth or in early infancy, is the most common fibrous tumor of infancy and early childhood. Diagnosis could be challenging due to different clinical presentation. Very few cases are detected prenatally and visceral involvement is extremely rare.
Case presentation
We present a case of Disseminated Infantile Myofibromatosis with challenging prenatal ultrasound and misleading clinical presentation. Diagnosis was very difficult and confirmed by pathology results obtained after birth.
Conclusions
Visceral involvement constitutes a specific unfavorable prognostic factor but a watchful waiting approach would always be appropriate, since spontaneous regression and a favourable evolution are possible and age-related chemotherapy severe side effects and long-term sequelae are matter of concern.
Keywords: Infantile myofibromatosis, Case report, Fibrous tumor, Visceral involvement, Watch and wait
Background
Infantile myofbromatosis (IM) is a mesenchymal disorder characterized by nodules in the skin, muscle, bone, and, more rarely, in visceral organs. Although rare, IM is the most common fibrous tumor of infancy and early childhood, with an incidence of 1: 150,000 [1].
IM can present as a solitary form (SFIM), multicentric form without visceral involvement (MFIM) or disseminated form with visceral involvement (DFIM) [2]. Prognosis of SFIM and MFIM are usually good, while the mortality rate of DFIM is up to 73% [3]. Although spontaneous tumoral regression is frequent, progression or recurrence are also possible, so individual follow-up is mandatory.
Case presentation
E.E. is a male full term newborn (38 weeks), small for gestational age (SGA), born by emergency caesarean section because of alterations of cardiotocographic monitoring (CTG) in an uneventful pregnancy. APGAR 8-9.
The ultrasound evaluation in the third semester showed cysts in different regions of the body, with the bigger one (3 cm of diameter) into the right maxillary bone, but other similar formations were found in both legs and paravertebral muscles. No further investigation has been done during pregnancy.
At birth physical examination confirmed the presence of firm non-tender soft tissue masses in the same regions described in prenatal period and other similar lesions were present in lower back region, arms and neck. Also a blue-berry like nodule was evident in the periareolar right region (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.

First physical examination: At birth physical examination showed the presence of firm non-tender soft tissue masses in the right maxillary bone, in both legs and paravertebral muscles. Also a blue-berry like nodule was evident in the periareolar right region
No abdominal masses were palpable and the rest of the exam was normal.
In the second day of life, hyporeactivity, axial hypotonia and horizontal nystagmus were detected. Hyperammonemia, metabolic alkalosis and hypoalbuminemia were found and he was admitted to our Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.
Enteral feeding was immediately stopped and administration of albumin, carglumic acid and adequate parenteral nutrition with low protein and carbohydrate intake was started.
Abdominal ultrasound showed multiple hepatic hypoechoic formations (d max = 6 mm) and abdominal effusion; brain ultrasound and echocardiography were normal, as well as newborn metabolic screening and plasmatic and urinary amino acid.
In the following days, general conditions improved and enteral feeding was started.
In 12° day of life, because of a heart murmur echocardiogram was performed and a hyperechoic formation with regular edges (1.5 × 1.5 cm) was found in the right atrium (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2.
Echocardiogram: A hyperechoic formation with regular edges (1.5 × 1.5 cm) was found in the right atrium
MRI at the age of 20 days demonstrated inhomogeneous T2 hypointensity and T1 isointensity with contrast enhancement of 10 scattered lesions in dorsal and paravertebral region but also revealed multiple additional tumor foci in the muscles of all four extremities, left cerebellar hemisphere and liver lobes with the same imaging characteristics (Figs. 3,4,5).
Fig. 3.
MRI at the age of 20 days: Paraspinal lesions demonstrated inhomogeneous T2 hypointensity and T1 isointensity with contrast enhancement of 10 scattered lesions in dorsal and paravertebral region
Fig. 4.

MRI at the age of 20 days: Right sacral lesion in axial T1 with contrast enhancement
Fig. 5.

MRI at the age of 20 days: Mandibolar right formation on axial T1 and survey coronal
Biopsy of the paraspinal bigger lesion showed mesenchymal spindle cell proliferation. On immunohistochemical analysis, tumor cells stained strongly positive for SMA (Smooth Muscle Autoantibodies) but negative for CD34 and desmin. The Ki67 index was only 3%, sign of low proliferative activity.
Genomic DNA (gDNA) was extracted from the proband and parents’ peripheral blood (PB) samples for molecular analyses using next-generation sequencing (NGS). Trio-based clinical exome sequencing (CES) was performed utilizing the Trusight One Expended Sequencing Panel Kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). Libraries were prepared following the NextEra Flex for Enrichment protocol (Illumina) and sequenced on the NextSeq550Dx Illumina Platform (Illumina). Sequencing data were analyzed using the NextSeq control software v4.2.0 and Local Run Manager software v. 4.0.0, both provided by Illumina.
Variant calling data were analyzed using Geneyx analysis software v 5.15 (Geneyx, Herzliya,Israel), following reads alignment against the human genome reference (GRCh37) by the BWA Aligner software v. 11. [4] Filtering and prioritization of variants were performed using HPO terms [5]: “Abnormality of the airline”, “Long eyebrows and eyelashes”, “retrognathia”, “nodules hard consistency”, “Bone cyst”, “spinal cord lesion” and “skin nodule”. BAM (Binary Alignment Map) files were visually inspected by IGV (Integrative Genome Viewer) software 2.16.0 and Alamut Visual Plus Genome Viewer (Sophia Genetics. Lausanne, Switzerland). Variants were annotated according to the Human Genome Variants Society (HGVS) recommendations [6] and classified using interpretation tools (Varsome, Franklin by Genoox), public databases (ClinVar, LOVD, OMIM) and American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) criteria [7].
Trio-based CES analyses identified a heterozygous state variant, paternally inherited, in the intron 21 of the gene PDGFRB (NM_002609.4): c. 2905-8G > A; p.? (rs201866603).
A multidisciplinary counselling was started with paediatric oncologists, to evaluate the possibility of starting a pharmacological treatment, according to literature.
Because of the low weight of our patient (2380 g) and also the possibility of spontaneous regression no therapy was started and he was discharged with a close follow-up.
During the first year of life he showed good growth, adequate neurocognitive development, and progressive regression of all the lesions at 6 months (Fig. 6) up to the complete disappearance (Fig. 7) at 1-year except for the cardiac one.
Fig. 6.

Six-months examination: Progressive regression of the lesions
Fig. 7.

One-year examination: At 1-year he showed good growth with complete disappearance of all the lesions
In the right atrium, echocardiography highlighted an echogenic formation of 1 × 1 cm with regular contours which starts from the lateral wall and affects the plane of the tricuspid but which does not obstruct the right inflow and outflow.
Discussion and conclusions
The incidence of soft tissue fibrous tumours in newborns is about 1/15000 and 35% of them are IM [8].
Characteristic pathologic findings include generally: (1) not uniform size; (2) gray-white in color; (3) the necrosis and cystic change in the middle of nodules by the naked eyes. The characteristic microscope examination of tumor cells includes: (1) myofibroblastic cells arranged in short bundles or swirls; (2) spindle shape of myofibroblastic cells; (3) seldom mitosis of nucleus; (4) necrosis in the tumor and calcification in the mesenchymal tissue; and (5) some tumor cells growing under the vascular endothelium [9].
Pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in the PDGFRB gene (MIM * 173,410, PLATELET-DERIVED GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR, BETA) are linked to various clinical conditions inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern, including Myofibromatosis, infantile, 1 (OMIM # 228550). To date, over 600 PDGFRB variants have been reported in the ClinVar database (last accessed 27 November 2024), of which approximately 36 variants have been classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic. Most of these variants are missense and inframe indels located within the kinase domain of the PDGFRB protein. Germline deleterious variants associated with familial myofibromatosis are known to constitutively activate PDGFRB signaling, indicating a gain-of-function disease mechanism [10, 11].
The identified variant is listed in the gnomAD database, with a maximum subpopulation frequency of 0.0065% in the European (non-Finnish) population (5-149,497,421-C-T, gnomAD v2.1.1, gnomad.broadinstitute.com). ClinVar also contains an entry for this variant (Variation ID: 1486244). SpliceAI, an silico tool for predicting the effect of sequence changes on RNA splicing suggests that this variant may disrupt the consensus splice site (SpliceAI AG: 1.00, splice altering strong). The variant has not been previously reported in the literature or observed in individuals with clinical features of PDGFRB-related conditions. Based on ACMG guidelines (criteria PM2, PP3), it has been classified as a Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS).
Most cases occur spontaneously, but familial forms associated with germline mutations of PDGFRB are described, mainly in the multicentric form of the disease and genetic analysis may be helpful in patient’s treatment.
Familial IM follows an autosomal dominant mode of inheritance and is linked to PDGFRB germline variants. Somatic PDGFRB variants were also detected in solitary and multifocal IM lesions. PDGFRB variants associated with IM constitutively activate PDGFRB kinase activity in the absence of its ligand. Germline variants have lower activating capabilities than somatic variants and, thus, require a second cis-acting hit for full receptor activation. Typically, these mutant receptors remain sensitive to tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib. The SIOPE Host Genome Working Group, consisting of pediatric oncologists, clinical geneticists and scientists, met in January 2020 to discuss recommendations for genetic testing and surveillance for patients who are diagnosed with IM or have a family history of IM/PDGFRB germline variants [12].
The prognosis for patients with localized disease (LD), where the tumors are confined to the skin, muscle, or bone, is generally excellent. A study involving 71 patients with LD reported a 5-year overall survival rate of 95% (± 6%), indicating a high likelihood of long-term survival in these cases. Similarly, patients with multifocal disease (MFD) but without visceral involvement exhibit a comparable prognosis, with the same study reporting a 5-year overall survival rate of 95% (± 10%) [13].
However, the prognosis worsens significantly when the disease affects vital organs. Cases of multifocal disease with visceral involvement are associated with a much higher risk of mortality, with reported rates ranging from 33 to 76%, primarily due to complications affecting the cardiopulmonary and gastrointestinal systems [14, 15].
A key characteristic of IM is its potential for spontaneous regression, particularly in cases without visceral involvement. Many lesions undergo natural resolution within one to two years after diagnosis [16].
While many IM lesions regress on their own, there is a possibility of recurrence, particularly in cases where the initial tumors had visceral involvement or were only partially removed [17].
Functional impairments may also arise depending on the tumor's location. For example, tumors in the mandibular region can lead to dental and speech issues, especially if they interfere with bone development [18].
Since many of these lesions tend to regress over time, as seen in different case reports [19, 20] the traditional approach is to observe quiescent lesions, while growing myofibromas are treated with surgery or chemotherapy.
The "watch and wait" approach following biopsy has demonstrated success in numerous cases of both solitary lesions and visceral involvement. This was evidenced by Sparber et al., who analyzed 95 patients with IM enrolled in five Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studiengruppe (CWS) trials. Specifically, the W&W strategy was implemented in 55 out of 71 patients with primary localized disease, resulting in complete remission in 36 of them. Additionally, it was applied to seven out of 12 patients with visceral involvement. The authors concluded that a strict "watch and wait" strategy was appropriate for most patients [21].
Treatment decisions are based on the neoplasms' location and symptom profile, with solitary IM typically requiring minimal intervention. In contrast, multicentric IM and generalized IM with visceral involvement may necessitate more aggressive treatment when vital organs are affected.
In neonates and infants, however, either surgical removal of large, infiltrative masses or chemotherapy is associated with high morbidity [22]. Several chemotherapy regimens have been investigated, including combinations of vinblastine and methotrexate, vincristine and dactinomycin, and cyclophosphamide [9, 23, 24].
However, it remains uncertain whether these chemotherapy options definitively treat myofibromas or if the lesions would resolve spontaneously regardless of treatment. Sparber et al. also observed that systemic therapy with MTX/VBL remains an option in cases of progressive disease (PD), however, chemotherapy failed to salvage three patients with PD, including one with a secondary rhabdoid tumor, highlighting the urgent need for new treatment options.
Recently, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as imatinib and sunitinib, have emerged as effective treatment options for both autosomal dominant and somatic cases of IM with PDGFRB mutations [12, 25–27]. Imatinib offers a new and effective therapy for selected IM patients by targeting their known activating PDGFRB variants. In vitro studies suggest that PDGFRB activating mutations associated with familial IM and severe overgrowth syndrome, are sensitive to tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib, nilotinib and ponatinib [11].
Preliminary phase clinical trials using sorafenib-containing regimens in children have shown potential antitumor activity [28].
The role of these agents in treating IM remains largely unclear. In literature there are 3 different case reports to document the effective use of tyrosine kinase inhibition in treating a patient with IM; in one case, a patient with the previously identified 1681 C > A missense heterozygous germline mutation and refractory IM was successfully treated with sunitinib and vinblastine [27].
In another case, a patient with multicentric IM harboring a germ-line PDGFRB p.N666H mutation responded positively to imatinib treatment [29].
Another recent case report describes a unique condition in which cutaneous and pulmonary nodules progressed despite treatment with several chemotherapy regimens—including vinblastine and methotrexate, VAC, and 2-CDA—but responded rapidly to two different tyrosine kinase inhibitors [30].
However, possible long-term effects in this “benign” disease should be considered carefully when using new agent drugs in infants and children, nonetheless, TKI-associated growth impairment is a significant concern, particularly for prolonged treatment durations. Consequently, TKIs are generally reserved for severe cases involving vital organs and further research is needed to develop optimal protocols for tapering and discontinuing TKIs in the management of IM.
A case of disseminated visceral infantile myofibromatosis with first clinical appearance misleading for metabolic disease due to the liver involvement has been presented.
MRI was necessary to better define the dissemination of the lesions and biopsy confirmed the diagnosis.
Even though visceral involvement in DFIM is deemed as a specific poor prognostic factor, we confirm that a watchful waiting approach avoiding front-line active treatments should be always considered, since a spontaneous regression and a favourable evolution is possible and age-related chemotherapy severe side effects and long-term sequelae are matter of concern.
IM remains largely enigmatic, displaying a typically benign course that can, on rare occasions, lead to devastating outcomes; our experience suggests that the cautious use of novel drugs should be reserved for the most severe cases, Particular attention should be given to neonates, who are more likely to develop collateral effects. In PDGFRB-mutated IM, imatinib and sunitinib may represent promising future therapies. Nevertheless, given the generally benign nature of this disease, the potential long-term effects of novel agents in infants and children must be carefully considered and future research should focus on identifying minimally invasive therapies and establishing a standardized observation protocol, which is currently lacking.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Disclosures and conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest
Abbreviations
- IM
Infantile myofbromatosis
- SFIM
Solitary form
- MFIM
Multicentric form without visceral involvement
- DFIM
Disseminated form with visceral involvement
- CTG
Cardiotocographic monitoring
- MRI
Magnetic resonance imaging
- SMA
Smooth muscle autoantibodies
- Gdna
Genomic DNA
- PB
Peripheral blood
- NCS
Next-generation sequencing
- CES
Trio-based clinical exome sequencing
- SGA
Small for gestational age
- LD
Localized disease
- W&W
Watch and wait
Authors’ contributions
R.V., M.C. and A.F. drafted the initial manuscript and revised the manuscript; N.L. made substantial contributions to the conception of the manuscript and interpretation of the data; M.Q. and G.C. performed ultrasound tests; N.R. and S.M. made genetic analyses; C.N., F.D.L. and N.S. revised the manuscript. The final version of the manuscript was critically revised and finally approved as submitted by all the authors.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data availability
Data will be made available on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable. NICU consent, signed by parents at hospital admission, allows to use any personal data in anonymous form for scientific reason or publication.
Consent for publication
Consent for publication was obtained from parents.
Competing interests
Not applicable.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Pekar-Zlotin M, Levinsohn-Tavor O, Livneh A, Sher O, Melcer Y, Maymon R. Gynecology and Oncology Fetal Myofibromatosis: A Challenge for Prenatal Diagnosis Mini Review of the English Literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2019;74:607–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fraissenon A, Benchimol G, Cabet S, Brasseur-Daudruy M, Sonigo P, Salomon LJ, et al. Prenatal imaging patterns of different forms of infantile myofibromatosis. Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne. 2020;56:782–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wiswell TE, Davis J, Cunningham BE, Solenberger R, Thomas PJ. Infantile myofibromatosis: The most common fibrous tumor of infancy. J Pediatr Surg. 1988;23:314–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1754–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gargano MA, Matentzoglu N, Coleman B, Addo-Lartey EB, Anagnostopoulos AV, Anderton J, et al. The Human Phenotype Ontology in 2024: phenotypes around the world. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024;52:D1333–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Den Dunnen JT, Dalgleish R, Maglott DR, Hart RK, Greenblatt MS, McGowan-Jordan J, et al. HGVS Recommendations for the Description of Sequence Variants: 2016 Update. Hum Mutat. 2016;37:564–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17:405–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hausbrandt PA, Leithner A, Beham A, Bodo K, Raith J, Windhager R. A rare case of infantile myofibromatosis and review of literature. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B. 2010;19:122–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zhao G, Zhu M, Qin C, Liu X, Zhao X. Infantile Myofibromatosis: 32 Patients and Review of Literature. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2020;42:495–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Cheung YH, Gayden T, Campeau PM, LeDuc CA, Russo D, Nguyen V-H, et al. A Recurrent PDGFRB Mutation Causes Familial Infantile Myofibromatosis. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 2013;92:996–1000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Arts FA, Sciot R, Brichard B, Renard M, De Rocca SA, Dachy G, et al. PDGFRB gain-of-function mutations in sporadic infantile myofibromatosis. Hum Mol Genet. 2017;26:1801–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hettmer S, Dachy G, Seitz G, Agaimy A, Duncan C, Jongmans M, et al. Genetic testing and surveillance in infantile myofibromatosis: a report from the SIOPE Host Genome Working Group. Fam Cancer. 2021;20:327–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Venkatramani R, Wang L, McGregor LM, et al. The prognosis of patients with localized and multifocal disease. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2022;69: e29745.35488712 [Google Scholar]
- 14.Mentzel T, Bridge JA, Fletcher CDM. Prognostic factors in multifocal disease with visceral involvement. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:929–41. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Weaver DD, Emanuel BS, Blakemore KJ. Clinical implications of multifocal disease with visceral involvement. Am J Med Genet. 1985;21:309–20. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Gupta A, Biswas A, Ghosh S. Spontaneous regression in infantile myofibromatosis: A review. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12: e2022010.35223155 [Google Scholar]
- 17.Zhang X, Li H, Chen J. Recurrence patterns in infantile myofibromatosis. World J Clin Cases. 2019;7:2012–8. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Parsons MT, Sheikh S, Kassam AB. Functional impairments associated with mandibular tumors. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;78:1820–32.32649889 [Google Scholar]
- 19.Miwa T, Oi S, Nonaka Y, Tamogami R, Sasaki H, Akiyama M, et al. Rapid spontaneous regression of multicentric infantile myofibromatosis in the posterior fossa and lumbar vertebra. Childs Nerv Syst. 2011;27:491–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kawaguchi M, Mitsuhashi Y, Hozumi Y, Kondo S. A Case of Infantile Digital Fibromatosis with Spontaneous Regression. J Dermatol. 1998;25:523–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Sparber-Sauer M, Vokuhl C, Seitz G, Sorg B, Tobias M, Von Kalle T, et al. Infantile myofibromatosis: Excellent prognosis but also rare fatal progressive disease. Treatment results of five Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studiengruppe (CWS) trials and one registry. Pediat Blood Cancer. 2022;69:e29403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Mashiah J, Hadj-Rabia S, Dompmartin A, Harroche A, Laloum-Grynberg E, Wolter M, et al. Infantile myofibromatosis: A series of 28 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:264–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Weaver MS, Navid F, Huppmann A, Meany H, Angiolillo A. Vincristine and Dactinomycin in Infantile Myofibromatosis With a Review of Treatment Options. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2015;37:237–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Levine E, Fréneaux P, Schleiermacher G, Brisse H, Pannier S, Teissier N, et al. Risk-adapted therapy for infantile myofibromatosis in children. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012;59:115–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Hassan M, Butler E, Wilson R, Roy A, Zheng Y, Liem P, et al. Novel PDGFRB rearrangement in multifocal infantile myofibromatosis is tumorigenic and sensitive to imatinib. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud. 2019;5: a004440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Pattisapu P, Wenger TL, Dahl JP, Bly RA, Bonilla-Velez J, Wu N, et al. Avoidance of surgery for head and neck infantile myofibromatosis using imatinib monotherapy. Clinical Case Reports. 2022;10: e05382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Mudry P, Slaby O, Neradil J, Soukalova J, Melicharkova K, Rohleder O, et al. Case report: rapid and durable response to PDGFR targeted therapy in a child with refractory multiple infantile myofibromatosis and a heterozygous germline mutation of the PDGFRB gene. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Widemann BC, Kim A, Fox E, Baruchel S, Adamson PC, Ingle AM, et al. A phase I trial and pharmacokinetic study of sorafenib in children with refractory solid tumors or leukemias: a Children’s Oncology Group Phase I Consortium report. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:6011–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Pond D, Arts FA, Mendelsohn NJ, Demoulin J-B, Scharer G, Messinger Y. A patient with germ-line gain-of-function PDGFRB p.N666H mutation and marked clinical response to imatinib. Genet Med. 2018;20:142–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Bidadi B, Watson A, Weigel B, Oliveira A, Kirkham J, Arndt C. Treatment of generalized infantile myofibromatosis with sorafenib and imatinib: A case report. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2020;67: e28288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data will be made available on reasonable request.


