Literature DB >> 4001374

Bone tumors: magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography.

W D Zimmer, T H Berquist, R A McLeod, F H Sim, D J Pritchard, T C Shives, L E Wold, G R May.   

Abstract

The magnetic resonance (MR) imaging characteristics of bone tumors are described and the clinical utility of MR imaging in patient evaluation is reported. Fifty-two patients with skeletal lesions were examined with a Picker MR imager (0.15-T resistive magnet). Twenty-five patients had primary malignancies, seven had benign bone neoplasms, 15 had skeletal metastases, and five had neoplasm simulators. Forty-five patients had CT scans available for comparison. For demonstrating the extent of tumor in marrow, MR was superior to CT in 33% of cases, about equal to CT in 64%, and inferior to CT in 2%. For delineating the extent of tumor in soft tissue, MR was superior to CT in 38% of cases and about equal to CT in 62%. CT was superior in all cases for demonstrating calcific deposits and pathologic fractures. In four patients with metal prostheses or surgical clips, MR was superior to CT in documenting recurrent tumor because of artifactual degradation of the CT image. Direct sagittal and coronal images from MR permit accurate assessment of the relationship of tumor to adjacent normal structures, including the physis, joints, and neurovascular structures. MR is useful in the evaluation of bone tumors: it is of greatest value in evaluations of the peripheral skeleton, the medullary canal, soft tissues, and postoperative tumor recurrence. With a 0.15-T magnet, MR is less useful in the evaluation of the axial skeleton and cortical bone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 4001374     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.155.3.4001374

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  41 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance imaging in oncology.

Authors:  J E Husband; R Guy
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Normal childhood developmental patterns in skull bone marrow by MR imaging.

Authors:  T M Simonson; S C Kao
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  1992

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of four pulse sequences in assessing primary bone tumours.

Authors:  M Graif; J M Pennock; J Pringle; D R Sweetnam; A J Jelliffe; G M Bydder; I R Young
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 4.  Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  R E Steiner
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-06-20

5.  Case report 459: Fibrosarcomatous dedifferentiation of chondrosarcoma of the tibia.

Authors:  J K Lee; L Yao; C T Phelps; V A Pilon; C R Wirth
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Negative scintigraphy with positive magnetic resonance imaging in bone metastases.

Authors:  S V Kattapuram; J S Khurana; J A Scott; G Y el-Khoury
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Detection of local recurrent disease in musculoskeletal tumors: magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography.

Authors:  G Reuther; W Mutschler
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  Aneurysmal bone cyst of the orbit.

Authors:  Utku Senol; Kamil Karaali; Mahmut Akyüz; Tekinalp Gelen; Recai Tuncer; Ersin Lüleci
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.825

9.  Magnetic resonance imaging in malignant bone tumours.

Authors:  G U Exner; A R von Hochstetter; N Augustiny; G von Schulthess
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Contrast-enhanced MRI of healed pathologic vertebral compression fracture mimicking active disease in a patient treated for lymphoma.

Authors:  J Li; F O Tio; J R Jinkins
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.804

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.