MR differentiation of low-grade chondrosarcoma from enchondroma

Abstract Purpose To evaluate magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the discrimination between low-grade chondrosarcoma and enchondroma. Materials and methods MR images of 34 patients who were confirmed with low-grade chondrosarcoma or enchondroma were retrospectively reviewed. After review of medical...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical imaging 2013-05, Vol.37 (3), p.542-547
Hauptverfasser: Choi, Bo-Bae, Jee, Won-Hee, Sunwoo, Hee-Jung, Cho, Jae-Hyun, Kim, Jee-Young, Chun, Kyung-Ah, Hong, Suk-Joo, Chung, Hye Won, Sung, Mi-Sook, Lee, Yeon-Soo, Chung, Yang-Guk
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Purpose To evaluate magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the discrimination between low-grade chondrosarcoma and enchondroma. Materials and methods MR images of 34 patients who were confirmed with low-grade chondrosarcoma or enchondroma were retrospectively reviewed. After review of medical records, MR findings in 18 patients with low-grade chondrosarcoma and 16 patients with enchondroma were compared. MR images were retrospectively reviewed for the lesion location (central or eccentric; epiphysis, metaphysic, or diaphysis), margin, contour, mineralized matrix, endosteal scalloping, cortical expansion, cortical destruction, soft tissue mass formation, and periosteal reaction. Signal intensity, the patterns of contrast enhancement (unilocular or multilobular), soft tissue mass, and adjacent abnormal bone marrow and soft tissue signal were also reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-square test. Results The patients with low-grade chondrosarcoma had a significantly higher incidence of MR findings ( P < .05): predominantly intermediate signal on T1-weighted images [72% (13/18) in low-grade chondrosarcoma vs. 25% (4/16) in enchondroma], multilocular appearance on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images [83% (15/18) vs. 44% (7/16)], cortical destruction [33% (6/18) vs. 0% (0/16)], a soft tissue mass [28% (5/18) vs. 0% (0/16)], adjacent bone marrow and soft tissue abnormal signal [22% (4/18) vs. 0% (0/16)], and an involvement of the epiphysis or flat bone [56% (10/18) vs. 19% (3/16)]. Conclusion MR imaging shows helpful features for differentiating low-grade chondrosarcoma from enchondroma.
ISSN:0899-7071
1873-4499
DOI:10.1016/j.clinimag.2012.08.006