Advertisement

General Principles of Imaging

  • Daniel Vanel
Chapter
  • 250 Downloads

Abstract

Bone imaging has undergone significant changes during the last decades. Ultrasounds, CT, MR imaging, and PET have been added to arteriography, scintigraphy, and radiographs. At the same time, survival of primary malignant tumors has improved with chemotherapy and local results with conservative surgery. Imaging plays a major role in diagnosis, local and general staging, monitoring the treatment, and detecting recurrences.

Keywords

Diagnosis Imaging in bone lesions Imaging in soft tissue lesions Local staging Metastatic spread 

Selected Bibliography

  1. Azouz EM. Magnetic resonance imaging of benign bone lesions: cysts and tumors. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;13(4):219–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ciccarese F, Bazzocchi A, Ciminari R, Righi A, Rocca M, Rimondi E, Picci P, Bacchi Reggiani ML, Albisinni U, Zompatori M, Vanel D. The many faces of pulmonary metastases of osteosarcoma: retrospective study on 283 lesions submitted to surgery. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(12):2679–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kind M, Stock N, Coindre JM. Histology and imaging of soft tissue sarcomas. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72(1):6–15. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD. Imaging of soft-tissue musculoskeletal masses: fundamental concepts. Radiographics. 2016;36(6):1931–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Labarre D, Aziza R. Detection of local recurrences of limb soft tissue sarcomas: is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) relevant? Eur J Radiol. 2009;72(1):50–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Leplat C, Hossu G, Chen B, De Verbizier J, Beaumont M, Blum A, Gondim Teixeira PA. Contrast-enhanced 3-T perfusion MRI with quantitative analysis for the characterization of musculoskeletal tumors: Is It worth the trouble? Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211:1092–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lodwick GS, Wilson AJ, Farrell C, Virtama P, Dittrich F. Estimating rate of growth in bone lesions: observer performance and error. Radiology. 1980;134(3):577–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Miller SL, Hoffer FA. Malignant and benign bone tumors. Radiol Clin N Am. 2001;39(4):673–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Murphey MD. World Health Organization classification of bone and soft tissue tumors: modifications and implications for radiologists. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2007;11(3):201–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Paioli A, Rocca M, Cevolani L, Rimondi E, Vanel D, Palmerini E, Cesari M, Longhi A, Eraldo AM, Marchesi E, Picci P, Ferrari S. Osteosarcoma follow-up: chest X-ray or computed tomography? Clin Sarcoma Res. 2017;14(7):3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Palmerini E, Colangeli M, Nanni C, Fanti S, Marchesi E, Paioli A, Picci P, Cambioli S, Donati D, Cevolani L, De Paolis M, Gambarotti M, Ferrari S. The role of FDG PET/CT in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for localized bone sarcomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(2):215–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pasquali S, Bonvalot S, Tzanis D, Casali PG, Trama A, Gronchi A, RARECARENet Working Group. Treatment challenges in and outside a network setting: soft tissue sarcomas. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:31–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Picci P, Mercuri M, Ferrari S, Alberghini M, Briccoli A, Ferrari C, Pignotti E, Bacci G. Survival in high-grade osteosarcoma: improvement over 21 years at a single institution. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(6):1366–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rodallec MH, Feydy A, Larousserie F, Anract P, Campagna R, Babinet A, Zins M, Drapé JL. Diagnostic imaging of solitary tumors of the spine: what to do and say. Radiographics. 2008;28(4):1019–41. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shapeero LG, Vanel D. Imaging evaluation of the response of high-grade osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma to chemotherapy with emphasis on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2000;4(1):137–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shapeero LG, Vanel D, Verstraete KL, Bloem JL. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for soft tissue sarcomas. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 1999;3(2):101–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van der Woude HJ, Verstraete KL, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH, Hermans J, Bloem JL. Musculoskeletal tumors: does fast dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging contribute to the characterization? Radiology. 1998;208(3):821–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Vliet M, Kliffen M, Krestin GP, van Dijke CF. Soft tissue sarcomas at a glance: clinical, histological, and MR imaging features of malignant extremity soft tissue tumors. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(6):1499–511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Woertler K. Benign bone tumors and tumor-like lesions: value of cross-sectional imaging. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(8):1820–35. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wu JS, Hochman MG. Soft-tissue tumors and tumorlike lesions: a systematic imaging approach. Radiology. 2009;253(2):297–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhang J, Cheng K, Ding Y, Liang W, Ding Y, Vanel D, Cheng X. Study of single voxel 1H MR spectroscopy of bone tumors: differentiation of benign from malignant tumors. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(12):2124–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Vanel
    • 1
  1. 1.Surgical PathologyIstituto Ortopedico RizzoliBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations