Imaging of Malignant Skeletal Tumors

  • Jay Pahade
  • Aarti Sekhar
  • Sanjay K. Shetty
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 143)

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.


Positron Emission Tomography Multiple Myeloma Standardize Uptake Value Bone Scintigraphy Soft Tissue Mass 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 5.
    Miller S L and Hoffer F A. Malignant and benign bone tumors. Radiol Clin North Am, 39: 673–699, 2001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 7.
    Brenner W, Bohuslavizki K H, and Eary J F. PET imaging of osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med, 44: 930–942, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 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. 10.
    Klein M J and Siegal G P. Osteosarcoma: anatomic and histologic variants. Am J Clin Pathol, 125: 555–581, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 12.
    Jaffe H L. Intracortical osteogenic sarcoma. Bull Hosp Joint Dis, 21: 189–197, 1960.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 38.
    Schajowicz F. Juxtacortical chondrosarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 59-B: 473–480, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. 40.
    Seeger L L, Yao L, and Eckardt J J. Surface lesions of bone. Radiology, 206: 17–33, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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. 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. 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. 44.
    Chidambaram A and Sanville P. Mesenchymal chondrosarcoma of the maxilla. J Laryngol Otol, 114: 536–539, 2000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 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. 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. 47.
    Staals E L, Bacchini P, and Bertoni F. Dedifferentiated central chondrosarcoma. Cancer, 106: 2682–2691, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 58.
    Mulligan M E and Badros A Z. PET/CT and MR imaging in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol, 36: 5–16, 2007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 73.
    Roodman G D. Mechanisms of bone metastasis. N Engl J Med, 350: 1655–1664, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 94.
    Choi J J, Davis K W, and Blankenbaker D G. Percutaneous musculoskeletal biopsy. Semin Roentgenol, 39: 114–128, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay Pahade
    • 1
  • Aarti Sekhar
    • 1
  • Sanjay K. Shetty
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations