Literature DB >> 26220916

Can imaging criteria distinguish enchondroma from grade 1 chondrosarcoma?

Julia Crim1, Robert Schmidt2, Lester Layfield3, Christopher Hanrahan4, Betty Jean Manaster4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To minimize systematic bias and optimize agreement on imaging criteria in order to better define the accuracy of imaging criteria in the diagnosis of grade 1 chondrosarcoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study was IRB-approved and HIPAA compliant; informed consent was waived. Records were reviewed and disclosed 53 cases (38 women, 15 men ages 21-76) which were diagnosed as enchondroma or grade 1 chondrosarcoma and had available radiographs, contrast-enhanced MRI, and definitive diagnosis by histology or 5-year follow-up. 2 MSK radiologists read the studies independently after a session where they agreed on criteria for malignancy. Interobserver variability was determined as raw variability and with the kappa statistic. Accuracy was determined compared to final diagnosis. Reliability of imaging features of chondrosarcoma was determined using regression analysis.
RESULTS: The correct diagnosis of enchondroma was made on radiographs in 43 (67.2%) of readings, and on MRI in 37/64 (57.8%). The correct diagnosis of chondrosarcoma was made on radiographs in 5/24 (20.8%) of readings, and on MRI in 14/24 (57.8%). A diagnosis of borderline lesion was made in 19/64 (29.7%) of enchondromas on radiographs and 18/64 (28.1%) on MRI. The false positive rate of radiographs for chondrosarcoma was 2/64 (3.1%) and the false positive rate of MRI was 9/64 (14.1%). There was substantial interobserver variability. Cortical thickening and bone expansion were rare but specific signs of chondrosarcoma.
CONCLUSIONS: Both radiographs and MRI have limitations in the evaluation of low-grade cartilage lesions. MRI has an increased rate of both true-positive and false-positive diagnosis compared to radiographs. Differences in the findings of this study compared to previous literature may reflect the influence of systematic biases.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chondrosarcoma; Enchondroma; Sarcoma; Sarcoma diagnostic criteria; Systematic bias

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26220916     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.06.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  25 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Do Orthopaedic Oncologists Agree on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cartilage Tumors of the Appendicular Skeleton?

Authors:  Timothy A Damron
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  F-18 FDG PET differentiation of benign from malignant chondroid neoplasms: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Ty K Subhawong; Aaron Winn; Shai S Shemesh; Juan Pretell-Mazzini
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Risk factors for local recurrence from atypical cartilaginous tumour and enchondroma of the long bones.

Authors:  Costantino Errani; Shinji Tsukamoto; Giovanni Ciani; Manabu Akahane; Luca Cevolani; Piergiuseppe Tanzi; Akira Kido; Kanya Honoki; Yasuhito Tanaka; Davide Maria Donati
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-05-13

4.  Diagnostic value of MRI-based 3D texture analysis for tissue characterisation and discrimination of low-grade chondrosarcoma from enchondroma: a pilot study.

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

5.  What are the differentiating clinical and MRI-features of enchondromas from low-grade chondrosarcomas?

Authors:  Hassan Douis; M Parry; S Vaiyapuri; A M Davies
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Do Orthopaedic Oncologists Agree on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cartilage Tumors of the Appendicular Skeleton?

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

7.  Differential diagnosis and treatment of enchondromas and atypical cartilaginous tumours of the pelvis: analysis of 21 patients.

Authors:  Patricio A Alfaro; Giovanni Ciani; Carlos A Herrera; Davide Maria Donati; Costantino Errani
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-09-09

8.  Magnetic resonance imaging follow-up of chondroid tumors: regression vs. progression.

Authors:  Bo Mi Chung; Sung Hwan Hong; Hye Jin Yoo; Ja-Young Choi; Hee-Dong Chae; Dong Hyun Kim
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-12-03       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  The changing face of central chondrosarcoma of bone. One UK-based orthopaedic oncology unit's experience of 33 years referrals.

Authors:  A Mark Davies; Anish Patel; Rajesh Botchu; Christine Azzopardi; Steven James; Lee Jeys
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-02-27

Review 10.  Update on the imaging features of the enchondromatosis syndromes.

Authors:  Ban Sharif; Daniel Lindsay; Asif Saifuddin
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2021-07-24       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.