Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in planning the osseous resection margins of bony tumours in the proximal femur: based on coronal T1-weighted versus STIR images

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Assessment of the extent of tumours using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the basis for bone resection in limb-salvage surgery. We aimed to compare the accuracy of T1-weighted MRI and STIR sequences in measuring the extent of proximal femoral tumours, using the macroscopic specimens as the gold standard for comparison.

Materials and methods

We compared single coronal T1-weighted with STIR sequences in 34 proximal femoral tumours, using bivalved resected macroscopic tumours for comparison. After randomisation, four observers measured longitudinal osseous tumour extent using MRI and specimen photographs on two separate occasions, 3 weeks apart.

Results

There were 25 metastatic tumours, 8 chondrosarcomas and 1 myeloma. Eight patients presented with pathological fractures. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient for comparison of T1 with macroscopic tumours was 0.91 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 0.96) for all observers and 0.90 (95 % CI: 0.81 to 0.95) for STIR images. This difference was not statistically significant, and T1 and STIR sequence measurements had similar precision and accuracy. Bland–Altman plots showed T1-weighted imaging to be unbiased, whereas STIR sequences were biased and had systematic error. Moreover, STIR measurements overestimated tumour size by 6.4 mm (95 % CI: −26.9 to 39.7 mm) and 2 patients were outliers. T1 measurements were closer to the macroscopic measurements with a mean difference of 1.3 mm (95 % CI: −28.9 mm to 31.5 mm), with 3 patients falling outside of this. The variance was greater for STIR measurements. This difference between T1 and STIR measurements was statistically significant (p = 0.000003). The intra-observer reliability between separate measurements for MRI and specimen photographs achieved interclass correlation coefficients of 0.97, 0.96 and 0.95 (T1, STIR and macroscopic tumour respectively). T1 had greater interobserver correlation than for STIR and macroscopic tumour measurements (0.88 vs 0.85 and 0.85 respectively). These differences in interclass correlation were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

This study has shown T1-weighted MRI sequences to be unbiased compared with STIR sequences at determining intra-osseous tumour extent. STIR overestimates the length of bone tumours. T1 is therefore preferred for pre-operative planning for the resection of bone tumours.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Simon MA, Aschliman MA, Thomas N, Mankin HJ. Limb-salvage treatment versus amputation for osteosarcoma of the distal end of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68-A:1331–7.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cheng EY, Thompson Jr RC. New developments in the staging and imaging of soft-tissue sarcomas. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:443–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sanders TG, Parsons III TW. Radiographic imaging of musculoskeletal neoplasia. Cancer Control. 2001;8:221–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gillespy T, Manfrini M, Ruggieri P, Spanier SS, Pettersson H, Springfield DS. Staging of intraosseous extent of osteosarcoma: correlation of preoperative CT and MR imaging with pathologic macroslides. Radiology. 1988;167:765–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Meyer MS, Spanier SS, Moser M, Scarborough MT. Evaluating marrow margins for resection of osteosarcoma. A modern approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;363:170–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Trommel MF, Kroon HM, Bloem JL, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH. MR imaging based strategies in limb salvage surgery for osteosarcoma of the distal femur. Skeletal Radiol. 1997;26:636–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sundaram M, McGuire MH, Herbold DR, Wolverson MK, Heiberg E. Magnetic resonance imaging in planning limb-salvage surgery for primary malignant tumors of bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68-A:809–19.

    Google Scholar 

  8. O’Flanagan SJ, Stack JP, McGee HM, Dervan P, Hurson B. Imaging of intramedullary tumour spread in osteosarcoma: a comparison of techniques. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1991;73-B:998–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hao YK, Zhang YK, Yang ZP, Li X, Yang Q, Li JM. The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in determining the osteotomy plane in osteosarcoma. Orthopedics. 2008;31:544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Han G, Wang Y, Bi WZ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging is appropriate for determining the osteotomy plane for appendicular osteosarcoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Med Oncol. 2012;29:1347–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dwyer AJ, Frank JA, Sank VJ, et al. Short-TI inversion-recovery pulse sequence: analysis and initial experience in cancer imaging. Radiology. 1988;168:827–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Golfieri R, Baddeley H, Pringle JS, Souhami R. The role of the STIR sequence in magnetic resonance imaging examination of bone tumours. Br J Radiol. 1990;63:251–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Shuman WP, Patten RM, Baron RL, Liddell RM, Conrad EU, Richardson ML. Comparison of STIR and spin-echo MR imaging at 1ST in 45 suspected extremity tumors: lesion conspicuity and extent. Radiology. 1991;179:247–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. True Random Number Service. URL http://www.random.org/. Accessed 11 March 2013.

  15. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/ Accessed 17 November 2013.

  16. Fellows I. Deducer: a data analysis GUI for R. J Stat Softw 2012;49:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Baloch KG, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM. Radical surgery for the solitary bony metastasis from renal-cell carcinoma. J Bone Joint Surg. 2000;82-B:62–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fiorenza F, Abudu A, Grimer RJ, et al. Risk factors for survival and local control in chondrosarcoma of bone. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2002;84:93–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Singletary SE, Walsh G, Vauthey JN, et al. A role for curative surgery in the treatment of selected patients with metastatic breast carcinoma. Oncologist. 2003;8:241–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Avedian RS, Haydon RC, Peabody TD. Multiplanar osteotomy with limited wide margins: a tissue preserving surgical technique for high-grade bone sarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2754–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bielack SS, Kempf-Bielack B, Delling G, et al. Prognostic factors in high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremities or trunk: an analysis of 1,702 patients treated on neoadjuvant cooperative osteosarcoma study group protocols. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:776–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kawaguchi N, Ahmed AR, Matsumoto S, Manabe J, Matsushita Y. The concept of curative margin in surgery for bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Clin Orthop. 2004;419:165–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wong KC, Kumta SM, Antonio GE, Tse LF. Image fusion for computer-assisted bone tumour surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2533–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Cho HS, Oh JH, Han I, Kim HS. Joint-preserving limb salvage surgery under navigation guidance. J Surg Oncol. 2009;100:227–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Khan F, Pearle A, Lightcap C, Boland PJ, Healey JH. Haptic robot-assisted surgery improves accuracy of wide resection of bone tumours: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:851–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Jeys L, Matharu GS, Nandra RS, Grimer RJ. Can computer navigation-assisted surgery reduce the risk of an intralesional margin and reduce the rate of local recurrance in patients with a tumour of the pelvis or sacrum? Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B:1417–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Abed YY, Beltrami G, Campanacci DA, et al. Biological reconstruction after resection of bone tumours around the knee. Long term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;91-B:1366–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Onikul E, Fletcher BD, Parham DM, Chen G. Accuracy of MR imaging for estimating intraosseous extent of osteosarcoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:1211–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wallack ST, Wisner ER, Werner JA, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for estimating intramedullary osteosarcoma extent in pre-operative planning of canine limb-salvage procedures. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2002;43:432–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Golfieri R, Baddeley H, Pringle JS, Leung AW, Greco A, Souhami R. MRI in primary bone tumors: therapeutic implications. Eur J Radiol. 1991;12:201–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Mr N. Harness, Mr M. Pritchard, Mrs P. Evans and the Histopathology Department for taking the photographs of the pathological specimens.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital, Oswestry, Shropshire, SY10 7AG, UK

    Sarfraz Ahmad, Jonathan Stevenson, Charles Mangham, Gillian Cribb & Paul Cool

Authors
  1. Sarfraz Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan Stevenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles Mangham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gillian Cribb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul Cool
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarfraz Ahmad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmad, S., Stevenson, J., Mangham, C. et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in planning the osseous resection margins of bony tumours in the proximal femur: based on coronal T1-weighted versus STIR images. Skeletal Radiol 43, 1679–1686 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-014-1979-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-014-1979-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation