New approach for assessing vascular distribution within bone tumors using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI

  • Yukio Kawakami
  • Toshiyuki Kunisada
  • Shinsuke Sugihara
  • Atsushi Ono
  • Keiichiro Nishida
  • Nobuhiro Abe
  • Akira Kawai
  • Kazuo Fujiwara
  • Yuki Morimoto
  • Toshifumi Ozaki
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

To differentiate benign from malignant bone tumors by analyzing the vascular distribution within bone tumors with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

Methods

We studied dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for 49 bone tumors (22 malignant and 27 benign tumors). Seven small regions of interest (ROI) were set inside the largest portion of each tumor. Four ROI were placed evenly on the periphery and three ROI were placed evenly on the line of the longest breadth within the tumor. The slope of the curve (%Slope) was calculated on the time–intensity curves of the whole tumor and of each ROI. The variance values for the %Slope of the ROI were calculated to assess the dispersion of the intensity change at each ROI within the tumor.

Results

Mean value of the %Slopes of whole tumor regions for malignant bone tumors (70.4 ± 60.3%) was significantly higher than that for benign bone tumors (37.6 ± 52.9%) (P = 0.015), although giant cell tumor (GCT), a locally aggressive tumor, had a relatively higher %Slope. Mean value of the variance of %Slopes for malignant bone tumors (3485.9 ± 5942.5) was significantly higher than that for all benign tumors (470.4 ± 583.9) (P = 0.012), indicating that the %Slope values of seven ROI within malignant bone tumors varied more widely compared with the ROI inside benign bone tumors. GCT also demonstrated a lower value.

Conclusion

Our method of analyzing the signal intensity change at seven separate regions that evaluates the vascular distribution within a tumor could be a useful tool for differentiating between benign and malignant bone tumors.

Keywords

Bone tumors Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI Differential diagnosis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-aid for Young Scientists (B) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (No.18791040, No.15790792), by a grant from Japan Orthopaedics and Traumatology Foundation Inc. (No.0158), by Grants-in-Aid for Clinical Cancer Research and Grants-in-Aid for Cancer Research (14S-4 and -5) from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, and by a grant from JSPS Fujita Memorial Fund for Medical Research.

References

  1. Bloem JL, Taminiau AH, Eulderink F, Hermans J, Pauwels EK (1988) Radiologic staging of primary bone sarcoma: MR imaging, scintigraphy, angiography, and CT correlated with pathologic examination. Radiology 169:805–810PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloem JL, van der Woude HJ, Geirnaerdt M, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH, Hermans J (1997) Does magnetic resonance imaging make a difference for patients with musculoskeletal sarcoma? Br J Radiol 70:327–337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonnerot V, Charpentier A, Frouin F, Kalifa C, Vanel D, Di Paola R (1992) Factor analysis of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in predicting the response of osteosarcoma to chemotherapy. Invest Radiol 27:847–855PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brisse H, Ollivier L, Edeline V, Pacquement H, Michon J, Glorion C, Neuenschwander S (2004) Imaging of malignant tumours of the long bones in children: monitoring response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and preoperative assessment. Pediatr Radiol 34:595–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Egmont-Petersen M, Hogendoorn PC, van der Geest RJ, Vrooman HA, van der Woude H, Janssen JP, Bloem JL, Reiber JH (2000) Detection of areas with viable remnant tumor in postchemotherapy patients with Ewing’s sarcoma by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using pharmacokinetic modeling. Magn Reson Imaging 18:525–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erlemann RP (1992) Dynamic Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging in the musculoskeletal system. In: Higgins HH, Helms C (eds) Magnetic resonance imaging of the body. Raven Press Ltd., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Erlemann R, Reiser MF, Peters PE, Vasallo P, Nommensen B, Kusnierz-Glaz CR, Ritter J, Roessner A (1989) Musculoskeletal neoplasms: static and dynamic Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 171:767–773PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Erlemann R, Sciuk J, Bosse A, Ritter J, Kusnierz-Glaz CR, Peters PE, Wuisman P (1990) Response of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma to preoperative chemotherapy: assessment with dynamic and static MR imaging and skeletal scintigraphy. Radiology 175:791–796PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fletcher BD, Hanna SL, Fairclough DL, Gronemeyer SA (1992) Pediatric musculoskeletal tumors: use of dynamic, contrast-enhanced MR imaging to monitor response to chemotherapy. Radiology 184:243–248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Geirnaerdt MJ, Hogendoorn PC, Bloem JL, Taminiau AH, van der Woude HJ (2000) Cartilaginous tumors: fast contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 214:539–546PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanna SL, Parham DM, Fairclough DL, Meyer WH, Le AH, Fletcher BD (1992) Assessment of osteosarcoma response to preoperative chemotherapy using dynamic FLASH gadolinium-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance mapping. Invest Radiol 27:367–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffer FA, Nikanorov AY, Reddick WE, Bodner SM, Xiong X, Jones-Wallace D, Gronemeyer SA, Rao BN, Kauffman WM, Laor T (2000) Accuracy of MR imaging for detecting epiphyseal extension of osteosarcoma. Pediatr Radiol 30:289–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holscher HC, Bloem JL, Nooy MA, Taminiau AH, Eulderink F, Hermans J (1990) The value of MR imaging in monitoring the effect of chemotherapy on bone sarcomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 154:763–769PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kawai A, Sugihara S, Kunisada T, Uchida Y, Inoue H (1997) Imaging assessment of the response of bone tumors to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Orthop 337:216–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kormano M, Dean PB (1976) Extravascular contrast material: the major component of contrast enhancement. Radiology 121:379–382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lang P, Honda G, Roberts T, Vahlensieck M, Johnston JO, Rosenau W, Mathur A, Peterfy C, Gooding CA, Genant HK (1995) Musculoskeletal neoplasm: perineoplastic edema versus tumor on dynamic postcontrast MR images with spatial mapping of instantaneous enhancement rates. Radiology 197:831–839PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lang P, Johnston JO, Arenal-Romero F, Gooding CA (1998) Advances in MR imaging of pediatric musculoskeletal neoplasms. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 6:579–604PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ma LD, Frassica FJ, McCarthy EF, Bluemke DA, Zerhouni EA (1997) Benign and malignant musculoskeletal masses: MR imaging differentiation with rim-to-center differential enhancement ratios. Radiology 202:739–744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pan G, Raymond AK, Carrasco CH, Wallace S, Kim EE, Shirkhoda A, Jaffe N, Murray JA, Benjamin RS (1990) Osteosarcoma: MR imaging after preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology 174:517–526PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 164:237–241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sanchez RB, Quinn SF, Walling A, Estrada J, Greenberg H (1990) Musculoskeletal neoplasms after intraarterial chemotherapy: correlation of MR images with pathologic specimens. Radiology 174:237–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. van der Woude HJ, Bloem JL, Hogendoorn PC (1998a) Preoperative evaluation and monitoring chemotherapy in patients with high-grade osteogenic and Ewing’s sarcoma: review of current imaging modalities. Skeletal Radiol 27:57–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van der Woude HJ, Verstraete KL, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH, Hermans J, Bloem JL (1998b) Musculoskeletal tumors: does fast dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging contribute to the characterization? Radiology 208:821–828PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Verstraete KL, Lang P (2000) Bone and soft tissue tumors: the role of contrast agents for MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 34:229–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Verstraete KL, De Deene Y, Roels H, Dierick A, Uyttendaele D, Kunnen M (1994a) Benign and malignant musculoskeletal lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging-parametric “first-pass” images depict tissue vascularization and perfusion. Radiology 192:835–843PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Verstraete KL, Dierick A, De Deene Y, Uyttendaele D, Vandamme F, Roels H, Kunnen M (1994b) First-pass images of musculoskeletal lesions: a new and useful diagnostic application of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 12:687–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Verstraete KL, Vanzieleghem B, De Deene Y, Palmans H, De Greef D, Kristoffersen DT, Uyttendaele D, Roels H, Hamers J, Kunnen M (1995) Static, dynamic and first-pass MR imaging of musculoskeletal lesions using gadodiamide injection. Acta Radiol 36:27–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 155:709–718PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yukio Kawakami
    • 1
  • Toshiyuki Kunisada
    • 1
  • Shinsuke Sugihara
    • 1
  • Atsushi Ono
    • 2
  • Keiichiro Nishida
    • 1
  • Nobuhiro Abe
    • 1
  • Akira Kawai
    • 3
  • Kazuo Fujiwara
    • 1
  • Yuki Morimoto
    • 1
  • Toshifumi Ozaki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Science of Functional Recovery and ReconstructionOkayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical SciencesOkayamaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Medical TechnologyOkayama Kousei HospitalOkayamaJapan
  3. 3.Division of Orthopaedic SurgeryNational Cancer Center HospitalTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations