Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A proposed “Radiological Evaluation Score for Bone Tumors” (REST): An objective system for assessment of a radiograph in patients with suspected bone tumor

  • Original Article
  • Published:
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 14 June 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Although radiographs have been widely used in the evaluation of patients with suspected bone tumors, the lack of an objective radiological assessment method leads to a challenge in reaching correct diagnosis. The study aimed to propose a Radiological Evaluation Score for Bone Tumors (REST) which includes eight radiological factors [characteristics, content, cortical breach, distinctiveness, distribution, periosteal reaction, fracture, and soft tissue swelling] to form a single score along with its validation by multidisciplinary observers.

Methods

We reviewed the radiographs of 100 patients with a primary bone tumor which were selected at random from the database between January 2017 and January 2019 of a tertiary cancer center. Four reviewers (two orthopedic oncologists and two surgical oncologists) independently assessed the radiographs, based on the reporting system of REST. We constituted two groups according to the probable diagnosis of bone tumor (suspected benign tumor and suspected malignant tumor).

Results

The mean score in the suspected benign tumor group was 1.1 (range 0–3, 95% CI 0.8–1.3) and in malignant tumor group was 6.1 (range 2–8, 95% CI 5.8–6.4). A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for REST was with a cutoff of 3.5, with the most diagnostic value area under curve (AUC) of 0.99. The sensitivity was 98% and specificity was 100% with a positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 98%. The inter-observer correlation coefficient was 0.985 (p value < 0.05), and Fleiss kappa value for the prediction of the benign or malignant lesion was 0.97 (p value < 0.05). The characteristics and content of tumor, cortical erosion, distinctiveness, distribution, periosteal reaction, and soft tissue mass had a significant correlation with the aggressiveness of bone lesion p value < 0.05.

Conclusions

The Radiological Evaluation Score for Bone Tumors (REST) is a structured reporting and objective method for the assessment of radiographs in patients with suspected bone tumors. This method is a reliable and helpful tool for clinicians in their outdoor patient department to differentiate a radiograph of a suspected benign tumor from a malignant bone tumor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Franchi A (2012) Epidemiology and classification of bone tumors. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 9(2):92–5 (Epub 2012 Sep 30 PMID: 23087718 PMCID: PMC3476517)

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Peabody T (2004) The rodded metastasis is a sarcoma: strategies to prevent inadvertent surgical procedures on primary bone malignancies. Instr Course Lect 53:657–661

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Spence GM, Dunning MT, Cannon SR, Briggs TW (2002) The hazard of retrograde nailing in pathological fractures. Three cases involving primary musculoskeletal malignancy. Injury 33(6):533–538

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jeon DG, Lee SY, Kim JW (2006) Bone primary sarcomas undergone unplanned intralesional procedures - the possibility of limb salvage and their oncologic results. J Surg Oncol 94:592–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Adams SC, Potter BK, Mahmood Z, Pitcher JD, Temple HT (2009) Consequences and prevention of inadvertent internal fixation of primary osseous sarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:519–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL, Aponte-Tinao LA, Farfalli G (2006) Effect of erroneous surgical procedures on recurrence and survival rates for patients with osteosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:231–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dowdy PA, Griffin AM, White LM, Wunder JS, Bell RS (1998) Bone sarcoma diagnosed at the time of reconstructive hip surgery. Can J Surg 41:273–282

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim MS, Lee SY, Cho WH, Song WS, Koh JS, Lee JA, Yoo JY, Shin DS, Jeon DG (2009) Prognostic effect of inadvertent curettage without treatment delay in osteosarcoma. J Surg Oncol 100(6):484–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bhangu AA, Beard JA, Grimer RJ (2004) Should soft tissue sarcomas be treated at a specialist centre? Sarcoma 8(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/13577140410001679185

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Giuliano AE, Eilber FR (1985) The rationale for planned reoperation after unplanned total excision of soft-tissue sarcomas. J Clin Oncol 3(10):1344–1348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Noria S, Davis A, Kandel R et al (1996) Residual disease following unplanned excision of soft-tissue sarcoma of an extremity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(5):650–655

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Alamanda VK, Delisca GO, Mathis SL et al (2013) The financial burden of reexcising incompletely excised soft tissue sarcomas a cost analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 20(9):2808–2814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mesko NW, Mesko JL, Gaffney LM, Halpern JL, Schwartz HS, Holt GE (2014) Medical malpractice and sarcoma care: a thirty-three-year review of case resolutions, inciting factors, and at risk physician specialties surrounding a rare diagnosis. J Surg Oncol 110(8):919–929

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lodwick GS, Wilson AJ, Farrell C, Virtama P, Dittrich F (1980) Determining growth rates of focal lesions of bone from radiographs. Radiology 134:577–583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lodwick GS (1964) Radiographic diagnosis and grading of bone tumors, with comments on computer evaluation. Proc Natl Cancer Conf 5:369–380

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Berquist TH, Dalinka MK, Alazraki N et al (2000) Bone tumors: American College of Radiology— ACR appropriateness criteria. Radiology 215(suppl):261–264

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Costelloe CM, Madewell JE (2013) Radiography in the initial diagnosis of primary bone tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200(1):3–7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8488 (PMID: 23255735)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Caracciolo JT, Temple HT, Letson GD, Kransdorf MJ (2016) A modified Lodwick-Madewell grading system for the evaluation of lytic bone lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207(1):150–156. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14368 (Epub 2016 Apr 12 PMID: 27070373)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pettersson H, Ahlberg A, Nilsson IM (1980) A radiologic classification of hemophilic arthropathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 149:153–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Osborne RL (1974) The differential radiologic diagnosis of bone tumors. CA Cancer J Clin 24(4):194–211

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tedesco NS, Henshaw RM (2016) Unplanned resection of sarcoma. JAAOS-Journal Am Acad Orthop Surg 24(3):150–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gaston CL, Nakamura T, Reddy K, Abudu A, Carter S, Jeys L, Tillman R, Grimer R (2014) Is limb salvage surgery safe for bone sarcomas identified after a previous surgical procedure? The Bone Joint J 96(5):665–672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Errani C, Tsukamoto S, Mavrogenis AF (2020) Imaging Analyses of Bone Tumors. JBJS Rev 8(3):e0077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Salunke AA, Nandy K, Kamani M, Puj K, Pathak S, Patel K et al (2021) A proposed “A to Z RAM (Radiograph Assessment Method)” for triage of patients with a suspected bone Tumor. Radiogr (Lond) S1078–8174(21):00001–00008

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Gujarat Cancer Research Institute (GCRI), Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

    A. A. Salunke

  2. Department of Anesthesia, Gujarat Cancer Research Institute (GCRI), Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

    K. Nandy, K. Puj, M. Kamani, A. Jain, M. Sharma, V. Warikoo, K. Patel, P. Rathod, S. Bhatt, T. Tank & S. Pandya

  3. Department of Orthopedics, MM Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Ambala, India

    S. Pathak

  4. Osteo Care - Ortho Onco Clinic, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

    J. Shah

  5. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Institute of Infrastructure, Technology, Research And Management, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

    R. H. Bhalerao

Authors
  1. A. A. Salunke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Nandy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Puj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Kamani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Pathak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. H. Bhalerao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. A. Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. V. Warikoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. K. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. P. Rathod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. S. Bhatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. T. Tank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. S. Pandya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. A. Salunke.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salunke, A.A., Nandy, K., Puj, K. et al. A proposed “Radiological Evaluation Score for Bone Tumors” (REST): An objective system for assessment of a radiograph in patients with suspected bone tumor. Musculoskelet Surg 106, 371–382 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-021-00711-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-021-00711-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation