Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2007; 11(1): 003-015
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-984411
Copyright © 2007 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA.

Musculoskeletal Neoplasia: Helping the Orthopaedic Surgeon Establish the Diagnosis

Theodore W. Parsons1 , 2 , 3 , 4  III , Spencer J. Frink5 , Scot E. Campbell6
  • 1Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, San Antonio, Texas
  • 2Clinical Associate Professor of Orthopaedics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
  • 3Dean for Graduate Medical Education, San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortion, San Antonio, Texas
  • 4Chief, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Wilford Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas
  • 5Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Wilford Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas
  • 6Chief, Musculoskeletal Imaging, Wilford Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 July 2007 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Encountering musculoskeletal neoplasia in the clinical practice of orthopaedic surgery is a rather uncommon event but can be an anxiety-provoking experience when it occurs. Using a systematic approach to imaging these lesions includes evaluation via plain radiographs and other modalities such as bone scintigraphy (BS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET). By applying specific imaging characteristics obtained from these different modalities, the radiologist and orthopaedic surgeon can jointly create an appropriate differential diagnosis. The radiologist plays a key role as part of the diagnostic team, including providing crucial support for biopsy and staging. This article discusses a systematic approach in the evaluation and staging of musculoskeletal neoplasia from the perspective of supporting the orthopaedic surgeon.

KEYWORDS

Musculoskeletal neoplasia - evaluation and staging of neoplasia - imaging characteristics of musculoskeletal neoplasia

REFERENCES

  • 1 Parsons III T W, Filzen T W. Evaluation and staging of musculoskeletal neoplasia.  Hand Clin. 2004;  20 137-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Peabody T D, Gibbs Jr C P, Simon M A. Current concepts review: evaluation and staging of musculoskeletal neoplasms.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;  80 1204-1218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sanders T G, Parsons III T W. Radiographic imaging of musculoskeletal neoplasia.  Cancer Control. 2001;  8 221-231
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lodwick G S, Wilson A J, Farrell C, Virtama P, Dittrich F. Determining growth rates of focal bone lesions from radiographs.  Radiology. 1980;  134 577-583
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bataille R, Chevalier J, Rossi M, Sany J. Bone scintigraphy in plasma-cell myeloma: a prospective study of 70 patients.  Radiology. 1982;  145 801-804
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Otsuka N, Fukunaga M, Morita K, Ono S, Nagai K. Photon-deficient finding in sternum on bone scintigraphy in patients with malignant disease.  Radiat Med. 1990;  8 168-172
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gilday D L, Ash J M. Benign bone tumors.  Semin Nucl Med. 1976;  6 33-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mankin H J. Chondrosarcoma of bone. In: Menendez LR Orthopaedic Knowledge Update: Musculoskeletal Tumors. Rosemont, IL; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2002: 187-194
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Assoun J, Richardi G, Railhac J J et al.. Osteoid osteoma: MR imaging versus CT.  Radiology. 1994;  191 217-223
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hosalkar H S, Sumeet G, Moroz L, Pollock A, Dormans J P. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI versus CT imaging for osteoid osteoma in children.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;  433 171-177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tehranzadeh J, Mnaymneh W, Ghavam C, Morillo G, Murphy B J. Comparison of CT and MR imaging in musculoskeletal neoplasms.  J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1989;  13 466-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Imhof H, Mang T. Advances in musculoskeletal radiology: multidetector computed tomography.  Orthop Clin North Am. 2006;  37 287-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dupuy D E, Rosenberg A E, Punyaratabundhu T, Tan M H, Mankin H J. Accuracy of CT-guided needle biopsy of musculoskeletal neoplasms.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;  171 759-762
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cheng E Y, Thompson R C. New developments in the staging and imaging of soft-tissue sarcomas.  Instr Course Lect. 2000;  49 443-451
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bonneville F, Cattin F, Marsot-Dupuch K, Dormont D, Bonneville J F, Chiras J. T1 signal hyperintensity in the sellar region: spectrum of findings.  Radiographics. 2006;  26 93-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 de Kerviler E, Cuenod C A, Clement O, Halimi P, Frija G, Frija J. What is bright on T1 MRI scans?.  J Radiol. 1998;  79 117-126
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bangert B A, Modic M T, Ross J S et al.. Hyperintense disks on T1-weighted MR images: correlation with calcification.  Radiology. 1995;  195 437-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Spiller M, Tenner M S, Couldwell W T. Effect of absorbable topical hemostatic agents on the relaxation time of blood: an in vitro study with implications for postoperative magnetic resonance imaging.  J Neurosurg. 2001;  95 687-693
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gissel H, Despa F, Collins J et al.. Magnetic resonance imaging of changes in muscle tissues after membrane trauma.  Ann NY Acad Sci. 2005;  1066 272-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gambarota G, Cairns B E, Berde C B, Mulkern R V. Osmotic effects on the T2 relaxation decay of in vivo muscle.  Magn Reson Med. 2001;  46 592-599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nissi M J, Toyras J, Laasanen M S et al.. Proteoglycan and collagen sensitive MRI evaluation of normal and degenerated articular cartilage.  J Orthop Res. 2004;  22 557-564
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Antoniou J, Pike G B, Steffen T et al.. Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of degenerative disc disease.  Magn Reson Med. 1998;  40 900-907
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Van Dyck P, Vanhoenacker F M, Vogel J et al.. Prevalence, extension and characteristics of fluid-fluid levels in bone and soft tissue tumors.  Eur Radiol. 2006;  16 2644-2651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 May D A, Good R B, Smith D K et al.. MR imaging of musculoskeletal tumors and tumor mimickers with intravenous gadolinium: experience with 242 patients.  Skeletal Radiol. 1997;  26 2-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tsushima Y, Endo K. Hypointensities in the brain on T2*-weighted gradient-echo magnetic resonance imaging.  Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2006;  35 140-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Eckhardt B P, Hernandez R J. Pigmented villonodular synovitis: MR imaging in pediatric patients.  Pediatr Radiol. 2004;  34 943-947
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rand T, Trattnig S, Male C et al.. Magnetic resonance imaging in hemophilic children: value of gradient echo and contrast-enhanced imaging.  Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;  17 199-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Vande Berg B C, Malghem J, Lecouvet F E, Maldague B. Classification and detection of bone marrow lesions with magnetic resonance imaging.  Skeletal Radiol. 1998;  27 529-545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Petren-Mallmin M. Clinical and experimental imaging of breast cancer metastases in the spine.  Acta Radiol Suppl. 1994;  391 1-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ruzal-Shapiro C, Berdon W E, Cohen M D, Abramson S J. MR imaging of diffuse bone marrow replacement in pediatric patients with cancer.  Radiology. 1991;  181 587-589
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Takagi S, Tanaka O, Miura Y. Magnetic resonance imaging of femoral marrow in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes or leukemia.  Blood. 1995;  86 316-322
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Durr H R, Reiser M. Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma.  Eur J Radiol. 2005;  55 56-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Walde T A, Weiland D E, Leung S B et al.. Comparison of CT, MRI, and radiographs in assessing pelvic osteolysis: a cadaveric study.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;  (437) 138-144
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Sofka C M, Potter H G, Figgie M, Laskin R. Magnetic resonance imaging of total knee arthroplasty.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;  (406) 129-135
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kolind S H, MacKay A L, Munk P L, Xiang Q S. Quantitative evaluation of metal artifact reduction techniques.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;  20 487-495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hodler J, Yu J S, Steinert H C, Resnick D. MR imaging versus alternative imaging techniques.  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1995;  3 591-608
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hosalkar H S, Garg S, Moroz L, Pollack A, Dormans J P. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI versus CT imaging for osteoid osteoma in children.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;  (433) 171-177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hicks R J, Toner G C, Choong P F. Clinical applications of molecular imaging in sarcoma evaluation.  Cancer Imaging. 2005;  5 66-72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Townsend D W, Beyer T, Blodgett T M. PET/CT scanners: a hardware approach to image fusion.  Semin Nucl Med. 2003;  33 193-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Messa C, Landoni C, Pozzato C, Fazio F. Is there a role for FDG PET in the diagnosis of musculoskeletal neoplasms?.  J Nucl Med. 2000;  41 1702-1703
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Adler L P, Blair H F, Makley J T et al.. Noninvasive grading of musculoskeletal tumors using PET.  J Nucl Med. 1991;  32 1508-1512
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kern K A, Brunetti A, Norton J A. Metabolic imaging of human extremity musculoskeletal tumors.  J Nucl Med. 1988;  29 181-186
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Aoki J, Endo K, Watanabe H et al.. FDG-PET for evaluating musculoskeletal tumors: a review.  J Orthop Sci. 2003;  8 435-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Bastiaannet E, Groen H, Jager P L et al.. The value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and response to therapy of bone and soft tissue sarcomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Cancer Treat Rev. 2004;  30 83-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Schulte M, Brecht-Kraus D, Heymer B et al.. Grading of tumors and tumorlike lesions of bone: evaluation by FDG PET.  J Nucl Med. 2000;  41 1695-1701
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T et al.. FDG PET of primary benign and malignant bone tumors: standardized uptake value in 52 lesions.  Radiology. 2001;  219 774-777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Bredella M A, Caputo G R, Steinbach L S. Value of FDG positron emission tomography in conjunction with MR imaging for evaluating therapy response in patients with musculoskeletal sarcomas.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;  179 1145-1150
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Hawkins D S, Rajendran J G, Conrad E U, Bruckner J D, Eary J F. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography.  Cancer. 2002;  94 3277-3284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Schulte M, Brecht-Krauss D, Werner M et al.. Evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy response of osteogenic sarcoma using FDG PET.  J Nucl Med. 1999;  40 1637-1643
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Franzius C, Sciuk J, Brinkschmidt C, Jurgens H, Schober O. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in primary bone tumors with F-18 FDG positron emission tomography compared with histologically assessed tumor necrosis.  Clin Nucl Med. 2000;  25 874-881
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Peterson J J, Kransdorf M J, O'Connor M I. Diagnosis of occult bone metastases: positron emission tomography.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;  (415 suppl) S120-S128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Kneisl J S, Patt J C, Johnson J C, Zuger J H. Is PET useful in detecting occult nonpulmonary metastases in pediatric bone sarcomas?.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;  450 101-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Fogelman I, Cook G, Israel O, Van der Wall H. Positron emission tomography and bone metastases.  Semin Nucl Med. 2005;  35 135-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Iagaru A, Chawla S, Menedez L, Conti P S. 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT for detection of pulmonary metastases from musculoskeletal sarcomas.  Nucl Med Commun. 2006;  27 795-802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Mankin H J, Mankin C J, Simon M A. The hazards of the biopsy, revisited. Members of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;  78 656-663
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Enneking W F, Spanier S S, Goodman M A. A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;  (153) 106-120
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Green F L, Page D L, Fleming I D et al.. Bone. In: Green FL, American Joint Committee on Cancer, American Cancer Society AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook. 6th ed. New York; Springer-Verlag 2002: 221-225
    Google Scholar

Theodore W Parsons IIIM.D. F.A.C.S. 

Dean for Graduate Medical Education, Wilford Hall Medical Center

2200 Bergquist Drive, Lackland AFB, TX 78236

      >