Literature DB >> 3238437

Computed tomography or magnetic resonance for evaluating the solitary tumor or tumor-like lesion of bone?

M Sundaram1, M H McGuire.   

Abstract

Following an abnormal radiograph, an initial 34 patients had both computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) to further characterize and stage a solitary tumor. This experience determined the choice between CT and MR in evaluating the next 55 solitary tumors. The choice of examination depends on the radiologist's ability to characterize the lesion from the radiograph as to its morphology, matrix, and probable histologic nature. The anatomic location, in turn, frequently influences the ability to characterize the lesion. Lesions in long bones can almost always be successfully characterized by radiography and, in these instances, only the MR examination is required to stage the tumor. Radiographic characterization of tumors in flat bones such as the scapula, certain portions of ribs, vertebrae, and pelvis is often difficult or incomplete. In these cases, CT is the preferred initial examination, and if further staging is required to establish the relationship of the tumor to soft tissues or neurovascular structures, the MR examination is done. Because of MR's superiority in staging the tumor and CT's superiority in characterizing the lesion, the initial choice between the two examinations should depend on the radiologist's ability to characterize the lesion from the radiograph. When radiographic depiction of tumor permits assessment of its morphology, matrix and probable histologic nature, (characterization) MR ought to be the next examination solely for staging purposes. It is the anatomic location of the tumor and the radiologist's ability to characterize it that ought to govern the choice of the next examination. Surgical and histopathological findings were known in all patients in this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3238437     DOI: 10.1007/bf00361657

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Skeletal Radiol        ISSN: 0364-2348            Impact factor:   2.199


  10 in total

1.  MRI in stress fracture.

Authors:  S A Stafford; D I Rosenthal; M C Gebhardt; T J Brady; J A Scott
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  The hazards of biopsy in patients with malignant primary bone and soft-tissue tumors.

Authors:  H J Mankin; T A Lange; S S Spanier
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Radiologic imaging of osteosarcoma: role in planning surgical treatment.

Authors:  T M Hudson; M Schiebler; D S Springfield; I F Hawkins; W F Enneking; S S Spanier
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Tumors of the osseous spine: staging with MR imaging versus CT.

Authors:  J Beltran; A M Noto; D W Chakeres; A J Christoforidis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Magnetic resonance imaging in planning limb-salvage surgery for primary malignant tumors of bone.

Authors:  M Sundaram; M H McGuire; D R Herbold; M K Wolverson; E Heiberg
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Bone tumors: magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography.

Authors:  W D Zimmer; T H Berquist; R A McLeod; F H Sim; D J Pritchard; T C Shives; L E Wold; G R May
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Primary musculoskeletal tumors: examination with MR imaging compared with conventional modalities.

Authors:  H Pettersson; T Gillespy; D J Hamlin; W F Enneking; D S Springfield; E R Andrew; S Spanier; R Slone
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Magnetic resonance imaging of osteosarcoma.

Authors:  M Sundaram; M H McGuire; D R Herbold
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Staging of musculoskeletal neoplasms. Musculoskeletal Tumor Society.

Authors: 
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging of primary tumours and tumour-like lesions of bone.

Authors:  K Bohndorf; M Reiser; B Lochner; W Féaux de Lacroix; W Steinbrich
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.199

  10 in total
  7 in total

Review 1.  Periosteum: characteristic imaging findings with emphasis on radiologic-pathologic comparisons.

Authors:  Damien Bisseret; Rachid Kaci; Marie-Hélène Lafage-Proust; Marianne Alison; Caroline Parlier-Cuau; Jean-Denis Laredo; Valérie Bousson
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 2.  Radiological images and machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects.

Authors:  Zhenwei Zhang; Ervin Sejdić
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 4.589

3.  Clinical applicability of human in vivo localized phosphorus-31 magnetic resonance spectroscopy of bone and soft tissue tumors.

Authors:  H J Hoekstra; W J Boeve; R L Kamman; E L Mooyaart
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 4.  Imaging response to systemic therapy for bone metastases.

Authors:  Tobias Bäuerle; Wolfhard Semmler
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Soft tissue edema in osteoid osteoma.

Authors:  J C Biebuyck; L D Katz; T McCauley
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Osteoid osteoma masquerading tubercular arthritis or osteomyelitis on MRI: Case series and review of literature.

Authors:  Jatinder Pal Singh; Smita Srivastava; Dharmendra Singh
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2015 Jul-Sep

Review 7.  Multimodal imaging of bone metastases: From preclinical to clinical applications.

Authors:  Stephan Ellmann; Michael Beck; Torsten Kuwert; Michael Uder; Tobias Bäuerle
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 5.191

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.