US-CT-MRI Findings: Staging-Response-Restaging of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors

  • Andreas P. Koureas


Primary malignant bone tumors are a rare and diverse group of tumors. Osteosarcoma is the commonest malignant neoplasm among the primary bone tumors (excluding multiple myeloma), accounting for 30% of all such malignancies. Soft tissue sarcomas are a rare (1% adult cancers and 6% of childhood cancers), heterogeneous group of malignant tumors that can affect any age and gender and are often highly aggressive. Soft tissue sarcomas occur in the extremities in about 50% of cases, with a predilection for the lower extremities (80%). Magnetic resonance imaging has the most important role in staging and characterizing all primary bone tumors. The primary goal of treatment is to achieve local control of the disease through a limb-salvage procedure; however, if the lesion is too advanced, an amputation or even disarticulation may be required. The decision depends on many factors such as tumor size, extracompartmental spread, and relationship to vessels, nerves, and joints. Identification of the compartments is very important in case of imaging-guided biopsy. Treatment of soft tissue and bone sarcomas requires a multidisciplinary team that includes radiologists, surgeons, and oncologists in order to provide optimal treatment with limb-preserving therapies.


  1. 1.
    Shigeru E (2006) MR imaging in staging of bone tumors. Cancer Imaging 6:158–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stacy GS, Mahal RS, Peabody TD (2006) Staging of bone tumors: a review with illustrative examples. AJR 186:967–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Husband J, Reznek R (2010) Imaging in oncology, 3rd edn. CRC Press, London. Informa heallthcareGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khoo MM, Tyler PA, al SA e (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in musculoskeletal MRI:a critical review. Skelet Radiol 40:665–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berquist TH, Ehman RL, King BF (1990) Value of MR imaging in differentiating benign from malignant soft-tissue masses: study of 95 lesions. AJR 155:1251–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stacchiotti S, Collini P, Messina A et al (2009) High-grade soft-tissue sarcomas: tumor response assessment—pilot study to assess the correlation between radiologic and pathologic response by using RECIST and Choi criteria. Radiology 251:447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishino M, Jagannathan JP, Ramaiya NH (2010) Revised RECIST guideline version 1.1: what oncologists want to know and what radiologists need to know. AJR 195:281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC et al (2007) Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol 25(13):1753–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Robinson E, Bleakney RR, Ferguson PC (2008) Oncodiagnosis panel: 2007 multidisciplinary management of soft-tissue sarcoma. Radiographics 28:2069–2086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group (2012) Ann Oncol 23(Suppl 7):vii92–vii99.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas P. Koureas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Athens, Medical School, Areteion HospitalAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations