Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Articles
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

References

  1. Beltran J, Noto AM, Chakeres DW, Christoforidis AJ (1987) Tumors of the osseous spine: staging with MR imaging versus CT. Radiology 162:565

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bohndorf K, Reiser M, Lochner B, Féaux de Lacroix W, Steinbrich W (1986) Magnetic resonance imaging of primary tumours and tumour-like lesions of bone. Skeletal Radiol 15:511

    Google Scholar 

  3. Enneking WF (1985) Staging of musculoskeletal neoplasms. Skeletal Radiol 13:183

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hudson TM, Schiebler M, Springfield DS, Hawkins IF, Jr, Enneking WF, Spanier SS (1983) Radiologic imaging of osteosarcoma: Role in planning surgical treatment. Skeletal Radiol 10:137

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mankin HJ, Lange T, Spanier S (1982) The hazards of the biopsy in patients with malignant primary bone and soft tissue tumors. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 64:1121

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pettersson H, Gillespy T III, Hamlin DJ, Enneking WF, Springfield DS, Andrew ER, Spanier S, Slone R (1987) Primary musculoskeletal tumors: Examination with MR imaging compared with conventional modalities. Radiology 164:237

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sim FH (1985) Limb salvage: Introduction (editorial). Orthopedics 8:537

    Google Scholar 

  8. Stafford SA, Rosenthal DI, Gebhardt MC, Brady TJ, Scott JA (1986) MRI in stress fracture. AJR 147:553

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sundaram M, McGuire MH, Herbold DR, Wolverson MK, Heiberg E (1986) Magnetic resonance imaging in planning limb-salvage surgery for primary malignant tumors of bone. Bone Joint Surg [Am] 68:809

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sundaram M, McGuire MH, Herbold DR (1987) Magnetic resonance imaging of osteosarcoma. Skeletal Radiol 16:23

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zimmer WD, Berquist TH, McLeod RA, Sim FH, Pritchard DJ, Shives TC, Wold LE, May GR (1985) Bone tumors: Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography. Radiology 155:709

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sundaram, M., McGuire, M.H. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance for evaluating the solitary tumor or tumor-like lesion of bone?. Skeletal Radiol 17, 393–401 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00361657

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00361657

Key words

Navigation