Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Evaluation of Bone Tumor Matrix: Diagnostic Value and Matrix Characteristics
Abstract
Objective: Plain radiographs are vital for initial evaluations of bone tumors. However, multiplanar imaging; like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is often necessary for inconclusive cases. Hence, we aimed to determine the diagnostic value of MRI in evaluating bone tumor matrix and analyzing MRI characteristics of the matrix.
Material and Methods: This study reviewed 245 MRI and plain radiographs of pathologically confirmed bone tumors; including 123 mineralized and 122 non-mineralized bone tumors. A radiologist having 16 years of experience assessed tumor matrix characteristics, including border, signal intensity on T1-weighted (T1W), T2-weighted (T2W), and gradient-echo images, along with enhancement patterns. Sensitivity, specificity, and a 95% confidence interval were used to present diagnostic values.
Results: MRI demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 78.1% and 87.7% in differentiating mineralized from non-mineralized matrices, compared to 75.6% and 92.6% for plain radiographs. Both modalities showed high sensitivity and specificity in evaluating osteoid and chondroid matrices (MRI: 80.3%/84.0%, 94.5%/96.8%; radiographs: 80.3%/72.0%, 95.1%/96.4% specificity). High specificity was noted in evaluating fibrous matrices (97.4%/99.6%) but with low sensitivity (23.5%/11.8%). MRI outperformed radiographs in subcategorizing fat, soft tissue, and cystic tumors. The chondroid matrix exhibited distinct characteristics on MRI (well-defined lobulated border with high/intermediate T2W and lobulated/peripheral enhancement), while osteoid and fibrous matrices showed similar features, except in T1W signal intensity. Non-mineralized tumors displayed varied characteristics.
Conclusion: While plain radiographs are essential for initial bone tumor assessment, especially for mineralization, MRI is superior in evaluating tumor matrices and non-mineralized tissues in providing detailed characterization for staging and treatment planning.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 2023;73:17–48.
Miller TT. Bone tumors and tumorlike conditions: analysis with conventional radiography. Radiology 2008;246:662–74.
Woertler K. Benign bone tumors and tumor-like lesions: value of cross-sectional imaging. Eur Radiol 2003;13:1820–35.
Sundaram M, McLeod RA. MR imaging of tumor and tumorlike lesions of bone and soft tissue. Am J Roentgenol 1990;155:817–24.
Tanutit P, Pakdee W, Laohawiriyakamol T, Iamthanaporn K. Magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating between aggressive and non-aggressive bone tumors. Acta Radiol 2023;64:625–37.
Nascimento D, Suchard G, Hatem M, de Abreu A. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of bone tumours and tumour-like lesions. Insights Imaging 2014;5:419–40.
Griffiths HJ, Galloway HR, Thompson RC, Suh J, Nelson T. The use of MRI in the diagnosis of benign and malignant bone and soft tissue tumours. Australas Radiol 1993;37:35–9.
Golfieri R, Baddeley H, Pringle JS, Leung AWL, Greco A, Souhami R, et al. Primary bone tumors: MR morphologic appearance correlated with pathologic examinations. Acta Radiol 1991;32:290–8.
Murphey D. The many faces of osteosarcoma. Radiographics 1997;17:1205-31.
Finkelstein D, Foremny G, Singer A, Clifford P, Pretell-Mazzini J, Kerr D, et al. Differential diagnosis of T2 hypointense masses in musculoskeletal MRI. Skeletal Radiol 2021;50:1981–94.
Kato H, Kawaguchi M, Miyase R, Iwashima K, Nagano A, Matsuo M. Comparison of MRI Findings among Osteofibrous Dysplasia, Fibrous Dysplasia, and NonOssifying Fibroma of the Long Bone. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2023;33:150–6.
Jelinek JS, Murphey MD, Kransdorf MJ, Shmookler BM, Malawer MM, Hur RC. Parosteal osteosarcoma: value of MR imaging and CT in the prediction of histologic grade. Radiology 1996;201:837-42.
Yarmish G, Klein MJ, Landa J, Lefkowitz RA, Hwang S. Imaging characteristics of primary osteosarcoma: nonconventional subtypes. Radiographics 2010;30:1653–72.
Geirnaerdt MJ, Bloem JL, Eulderink F, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH. Cartilaginous tumors: correlation of gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging and histopathologic findings. Radiology 1993;186:813-7.
Geirnaerdt MJA, Hogendoorn PCW, Bloem JL, Taminiau AHM, van der Woude H. Cartilaginous Tumors: Fast Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging. Radiology 2000;214:539–46.
Murphey MD, Flemming DJ, Boyea SR, Bojescul JA, Sweet DE, Temple HT. Enchondroma versus chondrosarcoma in the appendicular skeleton: differentiating features. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc 1998;18:1213–37.
Littrell LA, Wenger DE, Wold LE, Bertoni F, Unni KK. Radiographic, CT, and MR Imaging Features of Dedifferentiated Chondrosarcomas: A Retrospective Review of 174 De Novo Cases. Radiographics 2004;24:1397–09.
Hwang S, Panicek DM. The Evolution of Musculoskeletal Tumor Imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2009;47:435–53.
Kim JH, Lee SK. Classification of chondrosarcoma: from characteristic to challenging imaging findings. Cancers 2023;15:1703.
Bitar R, Leung G, Perng R, Tadros S, Moody AR. MR pulse sequences: what every radiologist wants to know but is afraid to ask. Radiographics 2006;26:513-37.
Tang MY, Chen TW, Zhang XM, Huang XH. GRE T2*-weighted mri: principles and clinical applications. BioMed Res Int 2014;2014:312142.
Fayad LM, Jacobs MA, Wang X, Carrino JA, Bluemke DA. Musculoskeletal tumors: how to use anatomic, functional, and metabolic MR techniques. Radiology 2012;265:340–56.
Udomruk S, Phanphaisarn A, Kanthawang T, Sangphukieo A, Sutthitthasakul S, Tongjai S, et al. Characterization of cell-free dna size distribution in osteosarcoma patients. Clin Cancer Res 2023;29:2085-94.
Kanthawang T, Wudhikulprapan W, Phinyo P, Settakorn J, Pruksakorn D, Link TM, et al. Can conventional magnetic resonance imaging at presentation predict chemoresistance in osteosarcoma? Br J Radiol 2024;97:451-61.
Hu Z, Yang S, Xu Z, Zhang X, Wang H, Fan G, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of bone metastasis and the development of bone metastatic prognostic classification system: a pan-cancer population study. Aging 2023;15:13134-49.
Phinyo P, Jarupanich N, Lumkul L, Phanphaisarn A, Poosiripinyo T, Sukpanichyingyong S, et al. Validation of a diagnostic model to differentiate multiple myeloma from bone metastasis. Clin Epidemiol 2023;15:881-90.
Elsabah H, El Omri H, Habas E, Taha RY, ElKourashy SA, Ibrahim F, et al. Real world evidence of epidemiological trends, clinical presentation, and prognostic outcomes of multiple myeloma (2007-2021). Front Med 2024;11:1338552.
Sweet DE, Madewell JE, Ragsdale BD. Radiologic and pathologic analysis of solitary bone lesions. Part III: matrix patterns. Radiol Clin North Am 1981;19:785–814.
Daniel A, Ullah E, Wahab S, Kumar V. Relevance of MRI in prediction of malignancy of musculoskeletal system-A prospective evaluation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009;10:125.
Alyas F, James SL, Davies AM, Saifuddin A. The role of MR imaging in the diagnostic characterisation of appendicular bone tumours and tumour-like conditions. Eur Radiol 2007;17:2675–86.
Zimmer WD, Berquist TH, McLeod RA, Sim FH, Pritchard DJ. Bone tumors: magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography. Radiology 1985;155:709–18.
Xu J, Hu Y, Zhou R, Sun S, Chen H. Zero echo time vs. T1-weighted MRI for assessment of cortical and medullary bone morphology abnormalities using CT as the reference standard. J Magn Reson Imaging 2023;58:752-60.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.