Abstract
When imaging bone tumors, the primary aims are to (1) identify the presence of a lesion; (2) characterize the lesion; and (3) delineate the location and extent of the lesion for staging and treatment. In these respects, each imaging modality has characteristic strengths and weaknesses. Certain modalities highlight features of a lesion better than others, contributing to the accurate diagnosis. Radiographs continue to be the best imaging modality to begin the workup and offer excellent assessment of the effects of the tumor on the host bone. CT and MRI can help troubleshoot certain features of the tumor and help in assessing the best targets for biopsy. Bone scan and PET/CT can establish the activity of the lesion and the distribution of disease. Often, the “workup” of a bone tumor or tumor-like lesion includes the use of several complementary imaging modalities. The utility of different imaging modalities for the workup of bone lesions is summarized below.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsSuggested Reading
Berquist TH, Dalinka MK, Alazraki N, et al. Bone tumors. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Radiology. 2000;215(Suppl):261–4.
Bestic JM, Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW. Use of FDG PET in staging, restaging, and assessment of therapy response in ewing sarcoma. Radiographics. 2009;29:1487–501.
Bredella MA, Stoller DW, Johnston JO. Bone and soft tissue tumors. In: Stoller DW, editor. Magnetic resonance imaging in orthopedics and sports medicine, vol. II. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 2045–61.
Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM, et al. Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:229–36.
Disler DG, McCauley TR, Ratner LM. In-phase and out-of-phase imaging of bone marrow: prediction of neoplasia based on the detection of coexistent fat and water. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1439–47.
Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2010.
Espinosa LA, Jamadar DA, Jacobson JA. CT-guided biopsy of bone: a radiologist’s perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:W283–9.
Karcaaltincaba M, Aktas A. Dual-energy CT revisited with multidetector CT: review of principles and clinical applications. Diagn Interv Radiol 2010;17(3):181–194.
Landa J, Schwartz LH. Contemporary imaging in sarcoma. Oncologist. 2009;14:1021–38.
Lang P, Gramp S, Vahlensieck M, et al. Primary bone tumors: value of MR angiography for preoperative planning and monitoring response to chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:135–42.
Liu PT, Valadez SD, Chivers S, et al. Anatomically based guidelines for core needle biopsy of bone tumors: implications for limb-sparing surgery. Radiographics. 2007;27:189–206.
Robert S. Radionuclide techniques. In: Resnick D, Kransdorf KJ, editors. Bone and joint imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2005. p. 86–118.
Stacy GS, Mahal RS, Peabody TD. Staging of bone tumors: a review with illustrative examples. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:967–76.
Tateishi U, Yamaguchi U, Seki K, et al. Bone and soft tissue sarcoma: preoperative staging with fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and conventional imaging. Radiology. 2007;245(3):839–47.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wu, J.S., Hochman, M.G. (2012). Imaging Modalities. In: Bone Tumors. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0808-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0808-7_3
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-0807-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-0808-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)