Conventional Radiology of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors

  • Spyros D. Yarmenitis


A systematic and an organized approach, based on clinical factors and radiographic features, is the current role of conventional radiology in the detection of bone tumors. The most important clinical aspect is patient’s age. The specific radiographic appearances that enable both differential shortening and more accurate tumor characterization are tumor location, lesion margins and zone of transition, periosteal reaction, radiographic opacity and patterns of mineralization, and size and number of lesions.


Bone tumors Conventional radiology Patient’s age Tumor location 


  1. 1.
    Madewell JE, Ragsdale BD, Sweet DE (1981) Radiologic and pathologic analysis of solitary bone lesions. I. Internal margins. Radiol Clin North Am 19:715–748PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ragsdale BD, Madewell JE, Sweet DE (1981) Radiologic and pathologic analysis of solitary bone lesions. II. Periosteal reactions. Radiol Clin North Am 19:749–783PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sweet DE, Madewell JE, Ragsdale BD (1981) Radiologic and pathologic analysis of solitary bone lesions. III. Matrix patterns. Radiol Clin North Am 19:785–814PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kricun ME (1983) Radiographic evaluation of solitary bone lesions. Orthop Clin North Am 14:39–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seeger LL, Dungan DH, Eckardt JJ (1991) Nonspecific findings on MR imaging: the importance of correlative studies and clinical information. Clin Orthop Relat Res 270:306–312Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayes CW, Conway WF, Sundaram M (1992) Misleading aggressive MR imaging appearance of some benign musculoskeletal lesions. Radiographics 12:1119–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ma LD, Frassica FJ, Scott WW (1995) Differentiation of benign and malignant musculoskeletal tumors: potential pitfalls with MR imaging. Radiographics 15:349–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Resnick D (2002) Diagnosis of bone and joint disorders, vol 3757, 4th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, pp 3922–3924Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kendell SD, Collins MS, Adkins MC (2004) Radiographic differentiation of enchondroma from low-grade chondrosarcoma in the fibula. Skeletal Radiol 33:458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geirnaerdt MJ, Hermans J, Bloem JL et al (1997) Usefulness of radiography in differentiating enchondroma from central grade 1 chondrosarcoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:1097–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flemming DJ, Murphey MD (2000) Enchondroma and chondrosarcoma. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 4:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cerase A, Priolo F (1998) Skeletal benign bone-forming lesions. Eur J Radiol 27(Suppl 1):S91–S97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pettersson H, Gillespy T III, Hamlin DJ et al (1987) Primary musculoskeletal tumors: examination with MR imaging compared with conventional modalities. Radiology 164:237–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zimmer WD, Berquist TH, McLeod RA et al (1985) Bone tumors: magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography. Radiology 155:709–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Spyros D. Yarmenitis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyHygeia HospitalMaroussiGreece

Personalised recommendations