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
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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
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
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
Kricun ME (1983) Radiographic evaluation of solitary bone lesions. Orthop Clin North Am 14:39–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
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
Hayes CW, Conway WF, Sundaram M (1992) Misleading aggressive MR imaging appearance of some benign musculoskeletal lesions. Radiographics 12:1119–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma LD, Frassica FJ, Scott WW (1995) Differentiation of benign and malignant musculoskeletal tumors: potential pitfalls with MR imaging. Radiographics 15:349–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnick D (2002) Diagnosis of bone and joint disorders, vol 3757, 4th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, pp 3922–3924Google Scholar
Kendell SD, Collins MS, Adkins MC (2004) Radiographic differentiation of enchondroma from low-grade chondrosarcoma in the fibula. Skeletal Radiol 33:458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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