OBJECTIVES: To determine whether dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can differentiate benign from malignant cartilage tumours compared to standard MRI. To investigate whether a cutoff value could be determined to differentiate enchondroma from low-grade chondrosarcoma (CS) more accurately. METHODS: One hundred six patients were included in this retrospective study: 75 with enchondromas (mean age = 41 years) and 31 with CS (mean age = 47 years). Within this population, a subgroup of patients was selected with the tumour arising in a long bone. At the time of diagnosis, the tumours were evaluated on MRI, including standard MRI, DCE-MRI, and region-of-interest (ROI) analysis to obtain information on tumour vascularisation and perfusion. RESULTS: The main cutoff value to differentiate enchondroma from CS contained a two-fold more relative enhancement compared with muscle, combined with a 4.5 (= 76°) slope value, with 100 % sensitivity and 63.3 % specificity. The prediction of CS diagnosis with DCE-MRI had 93.4 % accuracy. The accuracy of the standard MRI parameters was equal to the DCE-MRI parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Standard MRI and DCE-MRI both play an important and complementary role in differentiating enchondroma from low-grade CS. A combination of both imaging techniques leads to the highest diagnostic accuracy for differentiating cartilaginous tumours. KEY POINTS: • DCE-MRI plays an important role in differentiating benign from malignant cartilage tumours. • Retrospective study defined a threshold for 100 % detection of chondrosarcoma with DCE-MRI. • The threshold values were relative enhancement = 2 and slope = 4.5. • One hundred per cent chondrosarcoma detection corresponds with 36.7 % false-positive diagnosis of enchondroma. • Standard MRI is complementary to DCE-MRI in differentiating cartilaginous tumours.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can differentiate benign from malignant cartilage tumours compared to standard MRI. To investigate whether a cutoff value could be determined to differentiate enchondroma from low-grade chondrosarcoma (CS) more accurately. METHODS: One hundred six patients were included in this retrospective study: 75 with enchondromas (mean age = 41 years) and 31 with CS (mean age = 47 years). Within this population, a subgroup of patients was selected with the tumour arising in a long bone. At the time of diagnosis, the tumours were evaluated on MRI, including standard MRI, DCE-MRI, and region-of-interest (ROI) analysis to obtain information on tumour vascularisation and perfusion. RESULTS: The main cutoff value to differentiate enchondroma from CS contained a two-fold more relative enhancement compared with muscle, combined with a 4.5 (= 76°) slope value, with 100 % sensitivity and 63.3 % specificity. The prediction of CS diagnosis with DCE-MRI had 93.4 % accuracy. The accuracy of the standard MRI parameters was equal to the DCE-MRI parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Standard MRI and DCE-MRI both play an important and complementary role in differentiating enchondroma from low-grade CS. A combination of both imaging techniques leads to the highest diagnostic accuracy for differentiating cartilaginous tumours. KEY POINTS: • DCE-MRI plays an important role in differentiating benign from malignant cartilage tumours. • Retrospective study defined a threshold for 100 % detection of chondrosarcoma with DCE-MRI. • The threshold values were relative enhancement = 2 and slope = 4.5. • One hundred per cent chondrosarcoma detection corresponds with 36.7 % false-positive diagnosis of enchondroma. • Standard MRI is complementary to DCE-MRI in differentiating cartilaginous tumours.
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: Scott D Kendell; Mark S Collins; Mark C Adkins; Murali Sundaram; Krishnan K Unni Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2004-06-23 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Hans Gelderblom; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Sander D Dijkstra; Carla S van Rijswijk; Augustinus D Krol; Antonie H M Taminiau; Judith V M G Bovée Journal: Oncologist Date: 2008-03
Authors: P Santos; K K Peck; J Arevalo-Perez; S Karimi; E Lis; Y Yamada; A I Holodny; J Lyo Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Catharina S Lisson; Christoph G Lisson; Kerstin Flosdorf; Regine Mayer-Steinacker; Markus Schultheiss; Alexandra von Baer; Thomas F E Barth; Ambros J Beer; Matthias Baumhauer; Reinhard Meier; Meinrad Beer; Stefan A Schmidt Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: Agnieszka E Zając; Sylwia Kopeć; Bartłomiej Szostakowski; Mateusz J Spałek; Michał Fiedorowicz; Elżbieta Bylina; Paulina Filipowicz; Anna Szumera-Ciećkiewicz; Andrzej Tysarowski; Anna M Czarnecka; Piotr Rutkowski Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 6.639