PURPOSE: Our study aimed to assess the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the characterisation of musculoskeletal tumours and to identify specific perfusion patterns for the different tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2003 and September 2005, we evaluated the conventional and perfusion MRIs of 39 patients with musculoskeletal tumours. Dynamic MRI was performed with a 1.5-T and 1.0-T MRI unit before and after the intravenous administration of contrast material, using dedicated phased-array coils appropriate for the region to be studied and fast and ultrafast consecutive sequences. Postprocessing was done on an independent workstation (Advantage Windows, GE Medical System), with Functool (GE) software, which allowed a quantitative evaluation of enhancement as a function of time. The results were compared with the histopathological diagnoses obtained by biopsy or surgery. RESULTS: The lesions identified in the 39 patients included 23 soft tissue tumours (12 benign, 11 malignant) and 16 bone tumours (ten benign, six malignant). Comparing the time-intensity diagrams of lesions of the same histological type, we found typical enhancement patterns for some bone tumours only, especially for bone, cartilaginous, fibrohistiocytic and pseudoinflammatory lesions. No typical enhancement pattern could be detected for any of the histological types of soft tissue tumour. Analysis of the slope of the time-intensity curves has a sensitivity and specificity of 64%-58% for soft tissue tumours and 86%-67% for bone tumours in determining the biological aggressiveness of the lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Perfusion MRI had moderate sensitivity and specificity in the differential diagnosis between lesions with high or low biological activity. Only in a few cases was it possible to find some correlation between perfusion patterns and lesion histology. The slope values should therefore be used in combination with conventional spin-echo images and other imaging and clinical data in order to narrow the field of the possible differential diagnoses and reliably predict the nature of the lesion.
PURPOSE: Our study aimed to assess the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the characterisation of musculoskeletal tumours and to identify specific perfusion patterns for the different tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2003 and September 2005, we evaluated the conventional and perfusion MRIs of 39 patients with musculoskeletal tumours. Dynamic MRI was performed with a 1.5-T and 1.0-T MRI unit before and after the intravenous administration of contrast material, using dedicated phased-array coils appropriate for the region to be studied and fast and ultrafast consecutive sequences. Postprocessing was done on an independent workstation (Advantage Windows, GE Medical System), with Functool (GE) software, which allowed a quantitative evaluation of enhancement as a function of time. The results were compared with the histopathological diagnoses obtained by biopsy or surgery. RESULTS: The lesions identified in the 39 patients included 23 soft tissue tumours (12 benign, 11 malignant) and 16 bone tumours (ten benign, six malignant). Comparing the time-intensity diagrams of lesions of the same histological type, we found typical enhancement patterns for some bone tumours only, especially for bone, cartilaginous, fibrohistiocytic and pseudoinflammatory lesions. No typical enhancement pattern could be detected for any of the histological types of soft tissue tumour. Analysis of the slope of the time-intensity curves has a sensitivity and specificity of 64%-58% for soft tissue tumours and 86%-67% for bone tumours in determining the biological aggressiveness of the lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Perfusion MRI had moderate sensitivity and specificity in the differential diagnosis between lesions with high or low biological activity. Only in a few cases was it possible to find some correlation between perfusion patterns and lesion histology. The slope values should therefore be used in combination with conventional spin-echo images and other imaging and clinical data in order to narrow the field of the possible differential diagnoses and reliably predict the nature of the lesion.
Authors: J L Bloem; H J van der Woude; M J Geirnaerdt; A H Taminiau; P C Hogendoorn; C S van Rijswijk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2000 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Catherina S P van Rijswijk; Patrik Kunz; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Antonïe H M Taminiau; Joost Doornbos; Johan L Bloem Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: K L Verstraete; H J Van der Woude; P C Hogendoorn; Y De-Deene; M Kunnen; J L Bloem Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1996 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Lorraine G. Shapeero; Daniel Vanel; Koenraad L. Verstraete; Johan L. Bloem Journal: Semin Musculoskelet Radiol Date: 1999 Impact factor: 1.777
Authors: Catharina S P van Rijswijk; Maarje J A Geirnaerdt; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Antonie H M Taminiau; Frits van Coevorden; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Thomas L Pope; Johan L Bloem Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-09-30 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Federico Bruno; Francesco Arrigoni; Silvia Mariani; Alessandra Splendiani; Ernesto Di Cesare; Carlo Masciocchi; Antonio Barile Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Carlo Masciocchi; Francesco Arrigoni; Fabiana Ferrari; Aldo Victor Giordano; Sonia Iafrate; Ilaria Capretti; Ester Cannizzaro; Alfonso Reginelli; Anna Maria Ierardi; Chiara Floridi; Alessio Salvatore Angileri; Luca Brunese; Antonio Barile Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Alberto Bellelli; Enzo Silvestri; Antonio Barile; Domenico Albano; Alberto Aliprandi; Roberto Caudana; Vito Chianca; Francesco Di Pietto; Carlo Faletti; Eugenio Genovese; Andrea Giovagnoni; Carlo Masciocchi; Carmelo Messina; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Vincenzo Spina; Marcello Zappia Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Antonio Barile; Alice La Marra; Francesco Arrigoni; Silvia Mariani; Luigi Zugaro; Alessandra Splendiani; Ernesto Di Cesare; Alfonso Reginelli; Marcello Zappia; Luca Brunese; Ejona Duka; Giampaolo Carrafiello; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Federico Bruno; Francesco Arrigoni; Nicola Maggialetti; Raffaele Natella; Alfonso Reginelli; Ernesto Di Cesare; Luca Brunese; Andrea Giovagnoni; Carlo Masciocchi; Alessandra Splendiani; Antonio Barile Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2019-04
Authors: F D'Agostino; P Dell'Aia; C C Quattrocchi; R Del Vescovo; R Setola; R F Grasso; B Beomonte Zobel Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Federico Bruno; Francesco Arrigoni; Pierpaolo Palumbo; Raffaele Natella; Nicola Maggialetti; Alfonso Reginelli; Alessandra Splendiani; Ernesto Di Cesare; Luca Brunese; Giuseppe Guglielmi; Andrea Giovagnoni; Carlo Masciocchi; Antonio Barile Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Francesco Arrigoni; Antonio Barile; Luigi Zugaro; Alessandra Splendiani; Ernesto Di Cesare; Ferdinando Caranci; Anna Maria Ierardi; Chiara Floridi; Alessio Salvatore Angileri; Alfonso Reginelli; Luca Brunese; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Antonio Barile; Francesco Arrigoni; Luigi Zugaro; Marcello Zappia; Roberto Luigi Cazzato; Julien Garnon; Nitin Ramamurthy; Luca Brunese; Afshin Gangi; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 3.064