|Solitary bone lesions: which ones to worry about?|
|Jump to Full Text|
|PMID: 23022684 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE|
|The question is not classic: which signs suggest a possible malignancy when faced with a solitary bone lesion? Usually radiologists try to identify the leave me alone lesions, for which nothing is needed. Here we consider the suspicious lesions. Clinical and radiological indicators are proposed, leading to a probability. Nowadays, a biopsy is nevertheless always requested before treating a malignant lesion, even if suspicion is very high. But histology should integrate with the radiological signs.|
|Daniel Vanel; Eugenio Rimondi; Maia Vanel; Marco Gambarotti; Marco Alberghini|
Related Documents :
|23054514 - Osteochondritis dissecans knee histology studies have variable findings and theories of...
6575574 - The snuff-induced lesion. a clinical and morphological study of a swedish material.
23198464 - The aneurysmal bone cyst: report of a recent case encountered in dental practice.
16700804 - Two cases of generalized lichen nitidus treated successfully with narrow-band uv-b phot...
11235554 - Influence of lysates of the salivary glands of lutzomyia longipalpis on the development...
24975534 - Endoscopic management of nonpolypoid colorectal lesions in colonic ibd.
|Type: Journal Article Date: 2012-09-28|
|Title: Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society Volume: 12 ISSN: 1470-7330 ISO Abbreviation: Cancer Imaging Publication Date: 2012|
|Created Date: 2012-10-01 Completed Date: 2013-01-04 Revised Date: 2014-06-17|
Medline Journal Info:
|Nlm Unique ID: 101172931 Medline TA: Cancer Imaging Country: England|
|Languages: eng Pagination: 409-13 Citation Subset: IM|
|APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex|
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Cancer Imaging
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Cancer Imaging
Journal ID (publisher-id): CI
Journal ID (publisher-id): Cancer Imaging
© 2012 International Cancer Imaging Society
collection publication date: Year: 2012
Electronic publication date: Day: 28 Month: 9 Year: 2012
Volume: 12 Issue: 2
First Page: 409 Last Page: 413
PubMed Id: 23022684
Publisher Id: ci129049
|Solitary bone lesions: which ones to worry about?|
aDepartment of Radiology, The Rizzoli Institute, Bologna, Italy; bFaculté Vétérinaire de Maison Alfort, Paris, France; cDepartment of Pathology, the Rizzoli Institute, Bologna, Italy
|Correspondence: Corresponding address: Professor Daniel Vanel, Department of Anatomia Patologica, Istituti Ortopedici Rizzoli, via del Barbiano 1/10, Bologna 40106, Italy. Email: email@example.com
The diagnosis of a solitary bone lesion includes clinical, biological, and radiological signs, and then, of course, histology. From the first articles of Lodwick in 1968, using a computer program for the first time, the clever combination of well-analysed and well-recognized signs leads to an efficient diagnostic probability. Faced with a leave me alone lesion, nothing is done. Signs suggesting malignancy are less published, probably because no treatment is ever initiated before a biopsy. We propose signs, and then provide some practical examples.
A known cancer is a good reason to suspect a bone metastasis when faced with any bone lesion, even if the radiological pattern is not typical, leading sometimes to biopsies that would not have been performed otherwise. Malignant lesions are more frequent before the age of 20 years (from 0 to 5 years, metastases of neuroblastoma; from 5 to 20 years, Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma) and after 40 years of age (metastasis and myeloma). Location plays a major role; the same lesion has a different behaviour (and diagnosis) in different locations. That is especially true in cartilaginous tumours, the probability of malignancy being higher in axial tumours. Tumours of the anterior cortex of the tibia are very often adamantinomas (Fig. 1) in adults (and osteofibrous dysplasias in children). Epiphyseal lesions are very rarely malignant (some clear cell sarcomas).
Size is easy to use. Lesions that are less than 6 cm in the main diameter are very often benign (but the opposite is not true). Limitation gives an efficient evaluation of the speed of tumour growth; a well-limited lesion with a sclerotic border is almost always benign, but a permeative border only indicates a fast-growing lesion (including, e.g. acute infection and Langerhans cell histiocytosis). This limitation appears completely different on radiographs and computed tomography (CT) on the one hand, and on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on the other hand. The destruction of bone trabeculae described by Lodwick studied on radiographs and CT, and widely used, is completely different from the extension seen on MRI, and including the whole tumour, whatever the trabeculae involvement. The tumour looks better limited on MRI (Fig. 2). On MRI, peritumoral oedema is detected very easily. When very extensive, it usually indicates a benign lesion (osteoid osteoma, osteoblastoma, chondroblastoma, Langerhans cell histiocytosis).
A study of cortical involvement is also very efficient. When tumour is seen on both sides of a cortex, which looks uninvolved on imaging, the lesion is very aggressive, and has crossed the cortex without giving the osteoclasts the time to destroy it (Fig. 3). Conversely, if the cortex has completely disappeared, with a thin calcified periosteal reaction at the periphery of the lesion, this indicates a very slow-growing tumour, usually non-malignant.
The shape of periosteal bone formation is also very useful; perpendicular, it almost always indicates malignancy (in infection, enzymes make the periosteum disappear). Periosteal bone formations are better detected on CT (Fig. 3). The bone matrix may help, but ossifications, seen in osteosarcomas, are also detected in benign lesions. Cartilaginous lesions are discussed specifically. Osteosclerosis can be detected even when the lesion does not make bone. In 50% of Ewing sarcomas, it is visible on CT, and is secondary to deposits of calcium on remaining trabeculae. Fat inside a mass is a reliable indicator of a benign lesion.
The diagnosis of cartilaginous tumours is a daily nightmare for the radiologist and the pathologist. There is no agreement between radiologists and pathologists, but not even between expert radiologists or pathologists. Radiologically, size and location are used. When the lesion is huge (more than 5 cm), or axial, the probability of malignancy is higher. Two types of radiological criteria are used. (1) Morphologic criteria: the lesion is probably malignant if it has destroyed more than two-thirds of the cortex, invaded the soft tissues or has a periosteal reaction. These criteria have a limited value when the lesion is eccentric. Nodules of cartilage, surrounded by fat, and detected on MRI, indicate a benign tumour[10,11]. (2) Dynamic criteria: early uptake of contrast medium on MRI indicates an aggressive tumour and guides the biopsy.
This diagnosis is very difficult, even for the pathologist. Limited signs of aggressiveness, such as limited cortical lysis, or soft tissue involvement, or periosteal reaction suggest malignancy (Figs. 4 and 5). There is now a genetic marker to make the difference in difficult cases.
These are high-grade tumours developed on benign or low-grade lesions. They are frequent in cartilaginous lesions and in parosteal osteosarcomas. A purely lytic component and contrast medium uptake on MRI are excellent indicators of the high-grade part of the tumour (Fig. 6a), guiding the biopsy.
The job of the radiologist is first to identify the leave me alone lesions. But suggesting malignancy may help guide the biopsy and push the pathologist to find minimal signs or use specific markers. The most suggestive radiological signs of malignancy are tumour on both sides of a non-destroyed cortex and perpendicular periosteal bone formations.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
|1.||Lodwick GS. A probabilistic approach to the diagnosis of bone tumorsRadiol Clin North AmYear: 19653487497 PMid:5846856. 5846856|
|2.||Vanel D,Ruggieri P,Ferrari S,et al. The incidental skeletal lesion: ignore or explore?Cancer ImagingYear: 20099(A)S38S4319965292|
|3.||Brown KT,Kattapuram SV,Rosenthal DI. Computed tomography analysis of bone tumors: patterns of cortical destruction and soft tissue extensionSkeletal RadiolYear: 198615448451 doi:10.1007/BF00355103. PMid:3464100. 3464100|
|4.||Simpfendorfer CS,Ilaslan H,Davies AM,James SL,Obuchowski NA,Sundaram M. Does the presence of focal normal marrow fat signal within a tumor on MRI exclude malignancy? An analysis of 184 histologically proven tumors of the pelvic and appendicular skeletonSkeletal RadiolYear: 200837797804 doi:10.1007/s00256-008-0523-7. PMid:18551289. 18551289|
|5.||Geirnaerdt MJ,Bloem JL,Eulderink F,Hogendoorn PC,Taminiau AH. Cartilaginous tumors: correlation of gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging and histopathologic findingsRadiologyYear: 1993186813817 PMid:8430192. 8430192|
|6.||Zhang J,Cheng K,Ding Y,et al. Study of single voxel (1)H MR spectroscopy of bone tumors: Differentiation of benign from malignant tumorsEur J RadiolYear: 2011 PMid:22832118.|
|7.||Skeletal Lesions Interobserver Correlation among Expert Diagnosticians (SLICED) Study GroupReliability of histopathologic and radiologic grading of cartilaginous neoplasms in long bonesJ Bone Joint Surg AmYear: 2007892113212317908885|
|8.||Murphey MD,Flemming DJ,Boyea SR,Bojescul JA,Sweet DE,Temple HT. Enchondroma versus chondrosarcoma in the appendicular skeleton: differentiating featuresRadiographicsYear: 19981812131237 PMid:9747616. 9747616|
|9.||Bui KL,Ilaslan H,Bauer TW,Lietman SA,Joyce MJ,Sundaram M. Cortical scalloping and cortical penetration by small eccentric chondroid lesions in the long tubular bones: not a sign of malignancy?Skeletal RadiolYear: 2009 PMid:19277645.|
|10.||Vanel D,Kreshak J,Larousserie F,et al. Enchondroma vs. chondrosarcoma: a simple, easy-to-use, new magnetic resonance signEur J RadiolYear: 2012 PMid:22236701.|
|11.||Parlier-Cuau C,Bousson V,Ogilvie CM,Lackman RD,Laredo JD. When should we biopsy a solitary central cartilaginous tumor of long bones? Literature review and management proposalEur J RadiolYear: 201177612 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.06.051. PMid:21241899. 21241899|
|12.||Andresen KJ,Sundaram M,Unni KK,Sim FH. Imaging features of low-grade central osteosarcoma of the long bones and pelvisSkeletal RadiolYear: 200433373379 PMid:15175837. 15175837|
|13.||Dujardin F,Binh MB,Bouvier C,et al. MDM2 and CDK4 immunohistochemistry is a valuable tool in the differential diagnosis of low-grade osteosarcomas and other primary fibro-osseous lesions of the boneMod PatholYear: 201124624637 doi:10.1038/modpathol.2010.229. PMid:21336260. 21336260|
|14.||Bertoni F,Bacchini P,Staals EL,Davidovitz P. Dedifferentiated parosteal osteosarcoma: the experience of the Rizzoli InstituteCancerYear: 200510323732782 doi:10.1002/cncr.21039. PMid:15852358. 15852358|
Keywords: Keywords Bone tumour, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, malignant.
Previous Document: The comparative utility of oral swabs and probang samples for detection of foot-and-mouth disease vi...
Next Document: In-vitro investigation of out-of-field cell survival following the delivery of conformal, intensity-...