Imaging in Oncology pp 367-422 | Cite as
Imaging of Malignant Skeletal Tumors
- 11 Citations
- 1.5k Downloads
Malignant tumors of the skeleton represent a diverse group of primary and secondary neoplasms, each with unique imaging and clinical features. The radiologist encountering a lesion of the skeleton must apply a methodical approach to the analysis of imaging features to distinguish benign from malignant entities. This methodical approach can provide invaluable insight into the nature of the lesion, and will ultimately guide the final diagnosis; indeed, concordance between the imaging appearance and a preliminary histologic diagnosis is absolutely necessary to ensure that each lesion is appropriately diagnosed and managed. For the clinician, there is an ever-expanding array of potential imaging modalities that can characterize a lesion and evaluate its extent. Imaging will guide treatment, monitor response to therapy and facilitate discussions of prognosis. The purpose of this chapter is to familiarize the practicing clinician and radiologist with the most common malignant lesions of the skeleton. The chapter describes the major primary lesions of bone (osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, myeloma, Ewing’s Sarcoma and primary lymphoma of bone), as well as metastasis. Our goal is to familiarize the reader with the key imaging characteristics of each lesion, as well as the clinical features that may guide the differential diagnosis. The discussion incorporates all imaging modalities, including radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET) and bone scintigraphy, with a particular focus on the appropriate use of each modality in the diagnosis and staging of a newly detected lesion. Recent evidence, particularly focused on the newer modalities (MRI and PET), is presented to provide an evidence-based foundation for the imaging work-up.
Keywords
Positron Emission Tomography Multiple Myeloma Standardize Uptake Value Bone Scintigraphy Soft Tissue MassPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Lodwick G S, Wilson A J, Farrell C, Virtama P, and Dittrich F. Determining growth rates of focal lesions of bone from radiographs. Radiology, 134: 577–583, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Lodwick G S, Wilson A J, Farrell C, Virtama P, Smeltzer F M, and Dittrich F. Estimating rate of growth in bone lesions: observer performance and error. Radiology, 134: 585–590, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Arndt C A and Crist W M. Common musculoskeletal tumors of childhood and adolescence. N Engl J Med, 341: 342–352, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Murphey M D, Robbin M R, McRae G A, Flemming D J, Temple H T, and Kransdorf M J. The many faces of osteosarcoma. Radiographics, 17: 1205–1231, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Miller S L and Hoffer F A. Malignant and benign bone tumors. Radiol Clin North Am, 39: 673–699, 2001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Sajadi K R, Heck R K, Neel M D, et al. The incidence and prognosis of osteosarcoma skip metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res: 92–96, 2004.Google Scholar
- 7.Brenner W, Bohuslavizki K H, and Eary J F. PET imaging of osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med, 44: 930–942, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Huvos A G, Rosen G, Bretsky S S, and Butler A. Telangiectatic osteogenic sarcoma: a clinicopathologic study of 124 patients. Cancer, 49: 1679–1689, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Murphey M D, wan Jaovisidha S, Temple H T, Gannon F H, Jelinek J S, and Malawer M M. Telangiectatic osteosarcoma: radiologic-pathologic comparison. Radiology, 229: 545–553, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Klein M J and Siegal G P. Osteosarcoma: anatomic and histologic variants. Am J Clin Pathol, 125: 555–581, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Nakajima H, Sim F H, Bond J R, and Unni K K. Small cell osteosarcoma of bone. Review of 72 cases. Cancer, 79: 2095–2106, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Jaffe H L. Intracortical osteogenic sarcoma. Bull Hosp Joint Dis, 21: 189–197, 1960.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Smith J, Botet J F, and Yeh S D. Bone sarcomas in Paget disease: a study of 85 patients. Radiology, 152: 583–590, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.McCarville M B, Christie R, Daw N C, Spunt S L, and Kaste S C. PET/CT in the evaluation of childhood sarcomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 184: 1293–1304, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Rodriguez-Galindo C, Shah N, McCarville M B, et al. Outcome after local recurrence of osteosarcoma: the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital experience (1970–2000). Cancer, 100: 1928–1935, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Wittig J C, Bickels J, Priebat D, et al. Osteosarcoma: a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician, 65: 1123–1132, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Imbriaco M, Yeh S D, Yeung H, et al. Thallium-201 scintigraphy for the evaluation of tumor response to preoperative chemotherapy in patients with osteosarcoma. Cancer, 80: 1507–1512, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Menendez L R, Fideler B M, and Mirra J. Thallium-201 scanning for the evaluation of osteosarcoma and soft tissue sarcoma. A study of the evaluation and predictability of the histological response to chemotherapy. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 75: 526–531, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Bredella M A, Caputo G R, and Steinbach L S. Value of FDG positron emission tomography in conjunction with MR imaging for evaluating therapy response in patients with musculoskeletal sarcomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 179: 1145–1150, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Hawkins D S, Rajendran J G, Conrad E U, 3rd, Bruckner J D, and Eary J F. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer, 94: 3277–3284, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Murphey M D, Walker E A, Wilson A J, Kransdorf M J, Temple H T, and Gannon F H. From the archives of the AFIP: imaging of primary chondrosarcoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics, 23: 1245–1278, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Feldman F, Van Heertum R, Saxena C, and Parisien M. 18FDG-PET applications for cartilage neoplasms. Skeletal Radiol, 34: 367–374, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Murphey M D, Flemming D J, Boyea S R, Bojescul J A, Sweet D E, and Temple H T. Enchondroma versus chondrosarcoma in the appendicular skeleton: differentiating features. Radiographics, 18: 1213–1237; quiz 1244–1215, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Lee F Y, Yu J, Chang S S, Fawwaz R, and Parisien M V. Diagnostic value and limitations of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for cartilaginous tumors of bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 86-A: 2677–2685, 2004PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Evans H L, Ayala A G, and Romsdahl M M. Prognostic factors in chondrosarcoma of bone: a clinicopathologic analysis with emphasis on histologic grading. Cancer, 40: 818–831, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Arsos G, Venizelos I, Karatzas N, Koukoulidis A, and Karakatsanis C. Low-grade chondrosarcomas: a difficult target for radionuclide imaging. Case report and review of the literature. Eur J Radiol, 43: 66–72, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Tallini G, Dorfman H, Brys P, et al. Correlation between clinicopathological features and karyotype in 100 cartilaginous and chordoid tumors. A report from the Chromosomes and Morphology (CHAMP) Collaborative Study Group. J Pathol, 196: 194–203, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Janzen L, Logan P M, O’Connell J X, Connell D G, and Munk P L. Intramedullary chondroid tumors of bone: correlation of abnormal peritumoral marrow and soft tissue MRI signal with tumor type. Skeletal Radiol, 26: 100–106, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Geirnaerdt M J, Bloem J L, Eulderink F, Hogendoorn P C, and Taminiau A H. Cartilaginous tumors: correlation of gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging and histopathologic findings. Radiology, 186: 813–817, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Aoki J, Sone S, Fujioka F, et al. MRI of enchondroma and chondrosarcoma: rings and arcs of Gd-DTPA enhancement. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 15: 1011–1016, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Geirnaerdt M J, Hogendoorn P C, Bloem J L, Taminiau A H, and van der Woude H J. Cartilaginous tumors: fast contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology, 214: 539–546, 2000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Brenner W, Conrad E U, and Eary J F. FDG PET imaging for grading and prediction of outcome in chondrosarcoma patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 31: 189–195, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Collins M S, Koyama T, Swee R G, and Inwards C Y. Clear cell chondrosarcoma: radiographic, computed tomographic, and magnetic resonance findings in 34 patients with pathologic correlation. Skeletal Radiol, 32: 687–694, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Kaim A H, Hugli R, Bonel H M, and Jundt G. Chondroblastoma and clear cell chondrosarcoma: radiological and MRI characteristics with histopathological correlation. Skeletal Radiol, 31: 88–95, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Davila J A, Amrami K K, Sundaram M, Adkins M C, and Unni K K. Chondroblastoma of the hands and feet. Skeletal Radiol, 33: 582–587, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Aoki J, Tanikawa H, Ishii K, et al. MRI findings indicative of hemosiderin in giant-cell tumor of bone: frequency, cause, and diagnostic significance. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 166: 145–148, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Kumta S M, Griffith J F, Chow L T, and Leung P C. Primary juxtacortical chondrosarcoma dedifferentiating after 20 years. Skeletal Radiol, 27: 569–573, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Schajowicz F. Juxtacortical chondrosarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 59-B: 473–480, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Robinson P, White L M, Sundaram M, et al. Periosteal chondroid tumors: radiologic evaluation with pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 177: 1183–1188, 2001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Seeger L L, Yao L, and Eckardt J J. Surface lesions of bone. Radiology, 206: 17–33, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Antonescu C R, Argani P, Erlandson R A, Healey J H, Ladanyi M, and Huvos A G. Skeletal and extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma: a comparative clinicopathologic, ultrastructural, and molecular study. Cancer, 83: 1504–1521, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 42.Amukotuwa S A, Choong P F, Smith P J, Powell G J, Thomas D, and Schlicht S M. Femoral mesenchymal chondrosarcoma with secondary aneurysmal bone cysts mimicking a small-cell osteosarcoma. Skeletal Radiol, 35: 311–318, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Nussbeck W, Neureiter D, Soder S, Inwards C, and Aigner T. Mesenchymal chondrosarcoma: an immunohistochemical study of 10 cases examining prognostic significance of proliferative activity and cellular differentiation. Pathology, 36: 230–233, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 44.Chidambaram A and Sanville P. Mesenchymal chondrosarcoma of the maxilla. J Laryngol Otol, 114: 536–539, 2000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 45.Nguyen B D, Daffner R H, Dash N, Rothfus W E, Nathan G, and Toca A R, Jr. Case report 790. Mesenchymal chondrosarcoma of the sacrum. Skeletal Radiol, 22: 362–366, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.Frassica F J, Unni K K, Beabout J W, and Sim F H. Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma. A report of the clinicopathological features and treatment of seventy-eight cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 68: 1197–1205, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 47.Staals E L, Bacchini P, and Bertoni F. Dedifferentiated central chondrosarcoma. Cancer, 106: 2682–2691, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 48.Bruns J, Fiedler W, Werner M, and Delling G. Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma–a fatal disease. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 131: 333–339, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 49.Littrell L A, Wenger D E, Wold L E, et al. Radiographic, CT, and MR imaging features of dedifferentiated chondrosarcomas: a retrospective review of 174 de novo cases. Radiographics, 24: 1397–1409, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 50.MacSweeney F, Darby A, and Saifuddin A. Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma of the appendicular skeleton: MRI-pathological correlation. Skeletal Radiol, 32: 671–678, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 51.Okada K, Hasegawa T, Tateishi U, Endo M, and Itoi E. Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma with telangiectatic osteosarcoma-like features. J Clin Pathol, 59: 1200–1202, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 52.Saifuddin A, Mann B S, Mahroof S, Pringle J A, Briggs T W, and Cannon S R. Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma: use of MRI to guide needle biopsy. Clin Radiol, 59: 268–272, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 53.Mulligan M E. Imaging techniques used in the diagnosis, staging, and follow-up of patients with myeloma. Acta Radiol, 46: 716–724, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 54.Angtuaco E J, Fassas A B, Walker R, Sethi R, and Barlogie B. Multiple myeloma: clinical review and diagnostic imaging. Radiology, 231: 11–23, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 55.Durie B G, Kyle R A, Belch A, et al. Myeloma management guidelines: a consensus report from the Scientific Advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation. Hematol J, 4: 379–398, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 56.Vande Berg B C, Michaux L, Lecouvet F E, et al. Nonmyelomatous monoclonal gammopathy: correlation of bone marrow MR images with laboratory findings and spontaneous clinical outcome. Radiology, 202: 247–251, 1997.Google Scholar
- 57.Baur A, Stabler A, Nagel D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a supplement for the clinical staging system of Durie and Salmon? Cancer, 95: 1334–1345, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 58.Mulligan M E and Badros A Z. PET/CT and MR imaging in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol, 36: 5–16, 2007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 59.Johnston C, Brennan S, Ford S, and Eustace S. Whole body MR imaging: applications in oncology. Eur J Surg Oncol, 32: 239–246, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 60.Lecouvet F E, Dechambre S, Malghem J, Ferrant A, Vande Berg B C, and Maldague B. Bone marrow transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: prognostic significance of MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 176: 91–96, 2001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 61.Ghanem N, Lohrmann C, Engelhardt M, et al. Whole-body MRI in the detection of bone marrow infiltration in patients with plasma cell neoplasms in comparison to the radiological skeletal survey. Eur Radiol, 16: 1005–1014, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 62.Hartman R P, Sundaram M, Okuno S H, and Sim F H. Effect of granulocyte-stimulating factors on marrow of adult patients with musculoskeletal malignancies: incidence and MRI findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 183: 645–653, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 63.Lecouvet F E, Vande Berg B C, Michaux L, et al. Stage III multiple myeloma: clinical and prognostic value of spinal bone marrow MR imaging. Radiology, 209: 653–660, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 64.Layton K F, Thielen K R, Cloft H J, and Kallmes D F. Acute vertebral compression fractures in patients with multiple myeloma: evaluation of vertebral body edema patterns on MR imaging and the implications for vertebroplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 27: 1732–1734, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 65.Erly W K, Oh E S, and Outwater E K. The utility of in-phase/opposed-phase imaging in differentiating malignancy from acute benign compression fractures of the spine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 27: 1183–1188, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 66.Horger M, Claussen C D, Bross-Bach U, et al. Whole-body low-dose multidetector row-CT in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma: an alternative to conventional radiography. Eur J Radiol, 54: 289–297, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 67.Nandurkar D, Kalff V, Turlakow A, Spencer A, Bailey M J, and Kelly M J. Focal MIBI uptake is a better indicator of active myeloma than diffuse uptake. Eur J Haematol, 76: 141–146, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 68.Breyer R J, 3rd, Mulligan M E, Smith S E, Line B R, and Badros A Z. Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT with other imaging modalities in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol, 35: 632–640, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 69.Nanni C, Zamagni E, Farsad M, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 33: 525–531, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 70.Bredella M A, Steinbach L, Caputo G, Segall G, and Hawkins R. Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 184: 1199–1204, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 71.Moulopoulos L A, Gika D, Anagnostopoulos A, et al. Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging of bone marrow in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Oncol, 16: 1824–1828, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 72.Ghanem N, Uhl M, Brink I, et al. Diagnostic value of MRI in comparison to scintigraphy, PET, MS-CT and PET/CT for the detection of metastases of bone. Eur J Radiol, 55: 41–55, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 73.Roodman G D. Mechanisms of bone metastasis. N Engl J Med, 350: 1655–1664, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 74.Hamaoka T, Madewell J E, Podoloff D A, Hortobagyi G N, and Ueno N T. Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 22: 2942–2953, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 75.Schweitzer M E, Levine C, Mitchell D G, Gannon F H, and Gomella L G. Bull’s-eyes and halos: useful MRI discriminators of osseous metastases. Radiology, 188: 249–252, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 76.Spuentrup E, Buecker A, Adam G, van Vaals J J, and Guenther R W. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiation of benign fracture edema and tumor infiltration of the vertebral body. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 176: 351–358, 2001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 77.Lauenstein T C, Goehde S C, Herborn C U, et al. Whole-body MR imaging: evaluation of patients for metastases. Radiology, 233: 139–148, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 78.Schmidt G P, Haug A R, Schoenberg S O, and Reiser M F. Whole-body MRI and PET-CT in the management of cancer patients. Eur Radiol, 16: 1216–1225, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 79.Fogelman I, Cook G, Israel O, and Van der Wall H. Positron emission tomography and bone metastases. Semin Nucl Med, 35: 135–142, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 80.Nakamoto Y, Cohade C, Tatsumi M, Hammoud D, and Wahl R L. CT appearance of bone metastases detected with FDG PET as part of the same PET/CT examination. Radiology, 237: 627–634, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 81.Rougraff B T, Kneisl J S, and Simon M A. Skeletal metastases of unknown origin. A prospective study of a diagnostic strategy. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 75: 1276–1281, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 82.Mulligan M E, McRae G A, and Murphey M D. Imaging features of primary lymphoma of bone. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 173: 1691–1697, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 83.Krishnan A, Shirkhoda A, Tehranzadeh J, Armin A R, Irwin R, and Les K. Primary bone lymphoma: radiographic-MR imaging correlation. Radiographics, 23: 1371–1383; discussion 1384–1377, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 84.Mengiardi B, Honegger H, Hodler J, Exner U G, Csherhati M D, and Bruhlmann W. Primary lymphoma of bone: MRI and CT characteristics during and after successful treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 184: 185–192, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 85.Bernstein M, Kovar H, Paulussen M, et al. Ewing’s sarcoma family of tumors: current management. Oncologist, 11: 503–519, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 86.Hatori M, Okada K, Nishida J, and Kokubun S. Periosteal Ewing’s sarcoma: radiological imaging and histological features. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 121: 594–597, 2001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 87.Ilaslan H, Sundaram M, Unni K K, and Dekutoski M B. Primary Ewing’s sarcoma of the vertebral column. Skeletal Radiol, 33: 506–513, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 88.Li W Y, Brock P, and Saunders D E. Imaging characteristics of primary cranial Ewing sarcoma. Pediatr Radiol, 35: 612–618, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 89.Brisse H, Ollivier L, Edeline V, et al. Imaging of malignant tumours of the long bones in children: monitoring response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and preoperative assessment. Pediatr Radiol, 34: 595–605, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 90.Furth C, Amthauer H, Denecke T, Ruf J, Henze G, and Gutberlet M. Impact of whole-body MRI and FDG-PET on staging and assessment of therapy response in a patient with Ewing sarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 47: 607–611, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 91.Daldrup-Link H E, Franzius C, Link T M, et al. Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 177: 229–236, 2001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 92.Hawkins D S, Schuetze S M, Butrynski J E, et al. [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts outcome for Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. J Clin Oncol, 23: 8828–8834, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 93.Dyke J P, Panicek D M, Healey J H, et al. Osteogenic and Ewing sarcomas: estimation of necrotic fraction during induction chemotherapy with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology, 228: 271–278, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 94.Choi J J, Davis K W, and Blankenbaker D G. Percutaneous musculoskeletal biopsy. Semin Roentgenol, 39: 114–128, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 95.Ogilvie C M, Torbert J T, Finstein J L, Fox E J, and Lackman R D. Clinical utility of percutaneous biopsies of musculoskeletal tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 450: 95–100, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 96.Puri A, Shingade V U, Agarwal M G, et al. CT-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy in deep seated musculoskeletal lesions: a prospective study of 128 cases. Skeletal Radiol, 35: 138–143, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 97.Jelinek J S, Murphey M D, Welker J A, et al. Diagnosis of primary bone tumors with image-guided percutaneous biopsy: experience with 110 tumors. Radiology, 223: 731–737, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 98.Mitsuyoshi G, Naito N, Kawai A, et al. Accurate diagnosis of musculoskeletal lesions by core needle biopsy. J Surg Oncol, 94: 21–27, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 99.Anderson M W, Temple H T, Dussault R G, and Kaplan P A. Compartmental anatomy: relevance to staging and biopsy of musculoskeletal tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 173: 1663–1671, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 100.Liu P T, Valadez S D, Chivers F S, Roberts C C, and Beauchamp C P. Anatomically based guidelines for core needle biopsy of bone tumors: implications for limb-sparing surgery. Radiographics, 27: 189–205; discussion 206, 2007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 101.Mankin H J, Mankin C J, and Simon M A. The hazards of the biopsy, revisited. Members of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 78: 656–663, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 102.Davies N M, Livesley P J, and Cannon S R. Recurrence of an osteosarcoma in a needle biopsy track. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 75: 977–978, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 103.Hau A, Kim I, Kattapuram S, et al. Accuracy of CT-guided biopsies in 359 patients with musculoskeletal lesions. Skeletal Radiol, 31: 349–353, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 104.Leffler S G and Chew F S. CT-guided percutaneous biopsy of sclerotic bone lesions: diagnostic yield and accuracy. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 172: 1389–1392, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 105.Stoker D J, Cobb J P, and Pringle J A. Needle biopsy of musculoskeletal lesions. A review of 208 procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 73: 498–500, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 106.Tsukushi S, Katagiri H, Nakashima H, Shido Y, and Arai E. Application and utility of computed tomography-guided needle biopsy with musculoskeletal lesions. J Orthop Sci, 9: 122–125, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 107.Saifuddin A, Mitchell R, Burnett S J, Sandison A, and Pringle J A. Ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of primary bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 82: 50–54, 2000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 108.Yao L, Nelson S D, Seeger L L, Eckardt J J, and Eilber F R. Primary musculoskeletal neoplasms: effectiveness of core-needle biopsy. Radiology, 212: 682–686, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 109.Goetz M P, Callstrom M R, Charboneau J W, et al. Percutaneous image-guided radiofrequency ablation of painful metastases involving bone: a multicenter study. J Clin Oncol, 22: 300–306, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 110.Callstrom M R, Charboneau J W, Goetz M P, et al. Painful metastases involving bone: feasibility of percutaneous CT- and US-guided radio-frequency ablation. Radiology, 224: 87–97, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 111.Callstrom M R, Atwell T D, Charboneau J W, et al. Painful metastases involving bone: percutaneous image-guided cryoablation–prospective trial interim analysis. Radiology, 241: 572–580, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 112.Roberts C C, Morrison W B, Deely D M, Zoga A C, Koulouris G, and Winalski C S. Use of a novel percutaneous biopsy localization device: initial musculoskeletal experience. Skeletal Radiol, 36: 53–57, 2007.PubMedGoogle Scholar