PURPOSE: To evaluate magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the discrimination between low-grade chondrosarcoma and enchondroma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR images of 34 patients who were confirmed with low-grade chondrosarcoma or enchondroma were retrospectively reviewed. After review of medical records, MR findings in 18 patients with low-grade chondrosarcoma and 16 patients with enchondroma were compared. MR images were retrospectively reviewed for the lesion location (central or eccentric; epiphysis, metaphysic, or diaphysis), margin, contour, mineralized matrix, endosteal scalloping, cortical expansion, cortical destruction, soft tissue mass formation, and periosteal reaction. Signal intensity, the patterns of contrast enhancement (unilocular or multilobular), soft tissue mass, and adjacent abnormal bone marrow and soft tissue signal were also reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-square test. RESULTS: The patients with low-grade chondrosarcoma had a significantly higher incidence of MR findings (P<.05): predominantly intermediate signal on T1-weighted images [72% (13/18) in low-grade chondrosarcoma vs. 25% (4/16) in enchondroma], multilocular appearance on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images [83% (15/18) vs. 44% (7/16)], cortical destruction [33% (6/18) vs. 0% (0/16)], a soft tissue mass [28% (5/18) vs. 0% (0/16)], adjacent bone marrow and soft tissue abnormal signal [22% (4/18) vs. 0% (0/16)], and an involvement of the epiphysis or flat bone [56% (10/18) vs. 19% (3/16)]. CONCLUSION: MR imaging shows helpful features for differentiating low-grade chondrosarcoma from enchondroma.
PURPOSE: To evaluate magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the discrimination between low-grade chondrosarcoma and enchondroma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR images of 34 patients who were confirmed with low-grade chondrosarcoma or enchondroma were retrospectively reviewed. After review of medical records, MR findings in 18 patients with low-grade chondrosarcoma and 16 patients with enchondroma were compared. MR images were retrospectively reviewed for the lesion location (central or eccentric; epiphysis, metaphysic, or diaphysis), margin, contour, mineralized matrix, endosteal scalloping, cortical expansion, cortical destruction, soft tissue mass formation, and periosteal reaction. Signal intensity, the patterns of contrast enhancement (unilocular or multilobular), soft tissue mass, and adjacent abnormal bone marrow and soft tissue signal were also reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-square test. RESULTS: The patients with low-grade chondrosarcoma had a significantly higher incidence of MR findings (P<.05): predominantly intermediate signal on T1-weighted images [72% (13/18) in low-grade chondrosarcoma vs. 25% (4/16) in enchondroma], multilocular appearance on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images [83% (15/18) vs. 44% (7/16)], cortical destruction [33% (6/18) vs. 0% (0/16)], a soft tissue mass [28% (5/18) vs. 0% (0/16)], adjacent bone marrow and soft tissue abnormal signal [22% (4/18) vs. 0% (0/16)], and an involvement of the epiphysis or flat bone [56% (10/18) vs. 19% (3/16)]. CONCLUSION: MR imaging shows helpful features for differentiating low-grade chondrosarcoma from enchondroma.
Authors: Tomas Zamora; Julio Urrutia; Daniel Schweitzer; Pedro Pablo Amenabar; Eduardo Botello Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Patricio A Alfaro; Giovanni Ciani; Carlos A Herrera; Davide Maria Donati; Costantino Errani Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2019-09-09
Authors: Kai-Lou C Yue; Jonathan Lans; René M Castelein; David I Suster; G Petur Nielsen; Neal C Chen; Santiago A Lozano-CalderÓn Journal: Hand (N Y) Date: 2020-06-06