Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 85–90 | Cite as

Detection of local recurrent disease in musculoskeletal tumors: magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography

  • G. Reuther
  • W. Mutschler
Articles

Abstract

A 2 1/2-year prospective study of surgically treated malignant mesenchymal neoplasms showed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to be superior to computed tomography (CT) in sensitivity for local recurrent disease measuring less than 15 cm3. Larger masses were detected with similar sensitivity; specificity and predictive values did not differ. The presence of areas of high signal intensity on T2-weighted images proved to be a reliable criterion except in fibrous neoplasms. However, differentiation between non-hemorrhagic fluid collections, cross-sectioned veins or bowel contents and small tumor nodules cannot be made simply by signal intensity, but has to be based upon the evaluation of gross morphologic criteria.

Key words

Bone neoplasm recurrences, computed tomography Soft tissue neoplasm recurrences, computed tomography Bone neoplasm recurrences, magnetic resonance imaging Soft tissue neoplasm recurrences, magnetic resonance imaging Mesenchymal neoplasms, magnetic resonance imaging 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aisen AM, Martel W, Braunstein EM, McMillin KI, Philips WA, Kling TF (1986) MRI and CT evaluation of primary bone and soft tissue tumors. AJR 146:749Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beltran J, Noto AM, McGhee RB, Freedy RM, McCalla MS (1987) Infections of the musculoskeletal system: High-fieldstrength MR imaging. Radiology 164:449Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beltran J, Noto AM, Chatteries DW, Chakeres AJ (1987) Tumors of the osseous spine. Staging with MR imaging versus CT. Radiology 162:565Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berquist TH, Brown ML, Fitzgerald RH Jr, May GR (1985) Magnetic resonance imaging: Application in musculoskeletal infection. Magn Reson Imaging 3:219Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bohndorf K, Reiser M, Lochner B, de Lacroix WF, Steinbrich W (1986) Magnetic resonance imaging of primary tumours and tumour-like lesions of bone. Skeletal Radiol 15:511Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daffner RH, Lupetin AR, Dash N, Deeb ZL, Sefczek RJ, Schapiro RL (1986) MRI in the detection of malignant infiltration of bone marrow. AJR 146:353Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Demas BE, Heelan RT, Lane J, Marcove R, Hajdu S, Murray FB (1988) Soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities: Comparison of MR and CT in determining the extent of disease. AJR 150:615Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ehman RL, Berquist TH, McLeod RA (1988) MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system: A 5-year-appraisal. Radiology 166:313Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Genant HK, Wilson JS, Bovill EG (1980) Computed tomography of the musculoskeletal system. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 62:1088Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petterson MO, Gillespy T, Hamlin DJ, Enneking WF, Springfield DS, Andrew ER, Spanier SS, Ilone R (1987) Primary musculoskeletal tumors: Examination with MR imaging compared with conventional modalities. Radiology 164:237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Petterson H, Slone RM, Spanier S, Gillespy T III, Fitzsimmons JR, Scott KN (1988) Musculoskeletal tumours: T1 and T2 relaxation times. Radiology 167:783Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reuther G, Mutschler W (1989) Radiomorphologische Klassifikation zentraler Chondrosarkome. Fortschr Geb Röntgenstr Nuklearmed Ergänzungsband 150:1Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richardson ML, Kilcoyne RF, Gillespy T III (1986) Magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal neoplasms. Radiol Clin North Am 24:259Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Totty WG, Murphy WA, Lee JKT (1986) Soft tissue tumors: MR imaging. Radiology 160:135Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vanel D, Lacombe MJ, Couanet D, Kalifa C, Spielmann M, Genin J (1987) Musculoskeletal tumors: Follow-up with MR imaging after treatment with surgery and radiation therapy. Radiology 164:243Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wetzel LH, Levine E, Murphey MD (1987) Comparison of MR imaging and CT in the evaluation of musculoskeletal masses. Radiographics 7:851PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zimmer WD, Berquist TH, McLeod RA (1985) Bone tumors: Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography. Radiology 155:709Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Skeletal Society 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Reuther
    • 1
  • W. Mutschler
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of UlmGermany
  2. 2.Department ofSurgeryUniversity of UlmGermany

Personalised recommendations