Imaging of musculoskeletal tumors requires a multimodality approach and includes
radiography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Methods
Topics related to primary bone and soft-tissue tumors are reviewed. The fundamental imaging
principles are discussed as well as the applications of emerging imaging modalities.
Results
MRI is the preferred technique for the evaluation of musculoskeletal tumors, whereas other
imaging modalities play a complementary role. Radiography is indicated as the first-line
imaging modality in bone and soft-tissue tumors, whereas CT is the preferred modality for
evaluating cortical osseous lesions or calcifications and in patients with contraindications
to MRI. Positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and PET/MRI are helpful in identifying the
glucose metabolism of the lesion. Ultrasonography is the most useful for biopsy guidance and
can aid in differentiating cystic from solid masses and identifying vascularity. Novel
modalities, such as diffusion-weighted imaging, spectroscopy, and habitat imaging, show
promise in increasing diagnostic accuracy and affecting treatment strategies.
Conclusions
Conventional modalities and emerging, novel imaging techniques can provide noninvasive
methods to diagnose and evaluate musculoskeletal tumors.
References
1.
American College of Radiology. ACR
appropriateness criteria: softtissue masses. Published 1995. Last
reviewed 2012. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69434/Narrative. Accessed March 6,
2017.
2.
SundaramM.,
McLeodR.A.MR imaging of tumor and tumor like lesions of bone and soft
tissue.AJR Am J Roentgenol.1990; 155(4):
817–824.
3.
StacyG.S.,
PeabodyT.D.Staging of bone tumors: a review with illustrative
examples.AJR Am J Roentgenol.2006; 186(4):
967–976.
4.
American College of Radiology.ACR appropriateness criteria: primary bone tumors. Published
1995. Last reviewed 2013. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69421/Narrative. Accessed March 6,
2017.
5.
BalachT.,
StacyG.S.,
PeabodyT.D.The clinical evaluation of bone tumors.Radiol Clin North Am.2011; 49(6):
1079–1093, v.
6.
MillerT.T.Bone tumors and tumorlike conditions: analysis with conventional
radiography.Radiology.2008; 246(3):
662–674.
WuJ.S.,
HochmanM.G.Soft-tissue tumors and tumorlike lesions: a systematic imaging
approach.Radiology.2009; 253(2):
297–316.
9.
KransdorfM.J.,
MurpheyM.D.Radiologic evaluation of soft-tissue masses: a current
perspective.AJR Am J Roentgenol.2000; 175(3):
575–587.
10.
ManasterB.J.Soft-tissue masses: optimal imaging protocol and reporting.AJR Am J Roentgenol.2013; 201(3):
505–514.
11.
BalachT.,
StacyG.S.,
HaydonR.C.The clinical evaluation of soft tissue tumors.Radiol Clin North Am.2011; 49(6):
1185–1196, vi.
12.
AfonsoP.D.,
MascarenhasV.V.Imaging techniques for the diagnosis of soft tissue tumors.Rep Med Imag.2015; 2015(8):
63–70.
13.
CarraB.J.,
Bui-MansfieldL.T.,
O'BrienS.D.Sonography of mus-culoskeletal soft-tissue masses: techniques, pearls, and
pitfalls.AJR Am J Roentgenol.2014; 202(6):
1281–1290.
14.
LakkarajuA.,
SinhaR.,
GarikipatiR.Ultrasound for initial evaluation and triage of clinically suspicious
soft-tissue masses.Clin Radiol.2009; 64(6):
615–621.
15.
DoyleA.J.,
MillerM.V.,
FrenchJ.G.Ultrasound of soft-tissue masses: pitfalls in
interpretation.Australas Radiol.2000; 44(3):
275–280.
16.
WongK.K.,
PiertM.Dynamic bone imaging with 99mTc-labeled diphosphonates and 18F-NaF:
mechanisms and applications.J Nucl Med.2013; 54(4):
590–599.
17.
IlaslanH.,
SchilsJ.,
NageotteW.Clinical presentation and imaging of bone and soft-tissue
sarcomas.Cleve Clin J Med.2010; 77(suppl 1):
S2–S7.
18.
ShinD.S.,
ShonO.J.,
HanD.S.The clinical efficacy of (18)F-FDGPET/CT in benign and malignant
musculoskeletal tumors.Ann Nucl Med.2008; 22(7):
603–609.
19.
RobergeD.,
VakilianS.,
AlabedY.Z.FDG PET/CT in initial staging of adult soft-tissue sarcoma.Sarcoma.2012; 2012: 960194.
20.
FugloH.M.,
JorgensenS.M.,
LoftA.The diagnostic and prognostic value of (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT in the initial
assessment of high-grade bone and soft tissue sarcoma. A retrospective study of 89
patients.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.2012; 39(9):
1416–1424.
21.
VolkerT.,
DeneckeT.,
SteffenI.Positron emission tomography for staging of pediatric sarcoma patients:
results of a prospective multicenter trial.J Clin Oncol.2007; 25(34):
5435–5441.
22.
QuartuccioN.,
FoxJ.,
KukD.Pediatric bone sarcoma: diagnostic performance of (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT versus
conventional imaging for initial staging and follow-up.AJR Am J Roentgenol.2015; 204(1):
153–160.
23.
SheikhbahaeiS.,
MarcusC.,
Hafezi-NejadN.Value of FDG PET/CT in patient management and outcome of skeletal and soft
tissue sarcomas.PET Clin.2015; 10(3):
375–393.
24.
DeliscaG.O.,
AlamandaV.K.,
ArcherK.R.Tumor size increase following preoperative radiation of soft tissue
sarcomas does not affect prognosis.J Surg Oncol.2013; 107(7):
723–727.
25.
BlockxP.P.,
CarpL.Nuclear medicine imaging. In: De
SchepperA.M.,
ParizelP.M.,
BeuckeleerL.D.Imaging of Soft Tissue Tumors.2nd ed.New York: Springer;
2001: 45–69.
26.
BecherS.,
OskoueiS.PET imaging in sarcoma.Orthop Clin North Am.2015; 46(3):
409–415, xi.
BuchbenderC.,
HeusnerT.A.,
LauensteinT.C.Oncologic PET/ MRI, part 2: bone tumors, soft-tissue tumors, melanoma, and
lymphoma.J Nucl Med.2012; 53(8):
1244–1252.
29.
ZimmerW.D.,
BerquistT.H.,
McLeodR.A.Bone tumors: magnetic resonance imaging versus computed
tomography.Radiology.1985; 155(3):
709–718.
30.
HogeboomW.R.,
HoekstraH.J.,
MooyaartE.L.MRI or CT in the preoperative diagnosis of bone tumours.Eur J Surg Oncol.1992; 18(1):
67–72.
31.
PanicekD.M.,
GatsonisC.,
RosenthalD.I.CT and MR imaging in the local staging of primary malignant musculoskeletal
neoplasms: report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group.Radiology.1997; 202(1):
237–246.
WalkerE.A.,
SaleskyJ.S.,
FentonM.E.Magnetic resonance imaging of malignant soft tissue neoplasms in the
adult.Radiol Clin North Am.2011; 49(6):
1219–1234, vi.
34.
BahetiA.D.,
TirumaniS.H.,
RosenthalM.H.Myxoid soft-tissue neoplasms: comprehensive update of the taxonomy and MRI
features.AJR Am J Roentgenol.2015; 204(2):
374–385.
35.
HolzapfelK.,
ReglerJ.,
BaumT.Local staging of soft-tissue sarcoma: emphasis on assessment of
neurovascular encasement-value of MR imaging in 174 confirmed cases.Radiology.2015; 275(2):
501–509.
36.
PanicekD.M.,
GoS.D.,
HealeyJ.H.Soft-tissue sarcoma involving bone or neurovascular structures: MR imaging
prognostic factors.Radiology.1997; 205(3):
871–875.
37.
ZhangZ.,
DengL.,
DingL.MR imaging differentiation of malignant soft tissue tumors from peripheral
schwannomas with large size and heterogeneous signal intensity.Eur J Radiol.2015; 84(5):
940–946.
38.
WhiteL.M.,
WunderJ.S.,
BellR.S.Histologic assessment of peritumoral edema in soft tissue
sarcoma.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Physics.2005; 61(5):
1439–1445.
LantosJ.E.,
HwangS.,
PanicekD.M.Benign mural nodules within fluid collections at MRI after soft-tissue
sarcoma resection.AJR Am J Roentgenol.2014; 202(6):
1297–1302.
42.
DislerD.G.,
McCauleyT.R.,
RatnerL.M.In-phase and out-of-phase MR imaging of bone marrow: prediction of
neoplasia based on the detection of coexistent fat and water.AJR Am J Roentgenol.1997; 169(5):
1439–1447.
43.
CostaF.M.,
CanellaC.,
GasparettoE.Advanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in the evaluation of
musculoskeletal tumors.Radiol Clin North Am.2011; 49(6):
1325–1358, vii-viii.
44.
HwangS.,
PanicekD.M.Magnetic resonance imaging of bone marrow in oncology, part
1.Skel Radiol.2007; 36(10):
913–920.
45.
RagabY.,
EmadY.,
GheitaT.Differentiation of osteoporotic and neoplastic vertebral fractures by
chemical shift {in-phase and out-of phase} MR imaging.Eur J Radiol. 2009 Oct;72(1):
125–133.
46.
ZajickD.C.Jr,
MorrisonW.B.,
SchweitzerM.E.Benign and malignant processes: normal values and differentiation with
chemical shift MR imaging in vertebral marrow.Radiology.2005; 237(2):
590–596.
47.
AhlawatS.,
KhandheriaP.,
SubhawongT.K.Differentiation of benign and malignant skeletal lesions with quantitative
diffusion weighted MRI at 3T.Eur J Radiol.2015; 84(6):
1091–1097.
48.
KhooM.M.,
TylerP.A.,
SaifuddinA.Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in musculoskeletal MRI: a critical
review.Skelet Radiol.2011; 40(6):
665–681.
49.
SubhawongT.K.,
DurandD.J.,
ThawaitG.K.Characterization of soft tissue masses: can quantitative diffusion weighted
imaging reliably distinguish cysts from solid masses?Skelet Radiol.2013; 42(11):
1583–1592.
DemehriS.,
BelzbergA.,
BlakeleyJ.,
FayadL.M.Conventional and functional MR imaging of peripheral nerve sheath tumors:
initial experience.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol.2014; 35(8):
1615–1620.
53.
HayashidaY.,
YakushijiT.,
AwaiK.Monitoring therapeutic responses of primary bone tumors by
diffusion-weighted image: initial results.Eur Radiol.2006; 16(12):
2637–2643.
54.
FayadL.M.,
JacobsM.A.,
WangX.Musculoskeletal tumors: how to use anatomic, functional, and metabolic MR
techniques.Radiology.2012; 265(2):
340–356.
55.
DoganayS.,
AltinokT.,
AlkanA.The role of MRS in the differentiation of benign and malignant soft tissue
and bone tumors.Eur J Radiol.2011; 79(2):
e33–e37.
56.
FayadL.M.,
BluemkeD.A.,
McCarthyE.F.Musculoskeletal tumors: use of proton MR spectroscopic imaging for
characterization.J Magn Res Imaging.2006; 23(1):
23–28.
57.
RaghavanM.,
FarhidzadehH.,
HallL.O.MRI defined ecologic habits in extremity soft tissue sarcomas: characterization
and quantification of tumor heterogeneity and potential implications of patient
outcomes-early experience. Presented at: International Skeletal Society; Maui,
HI; December 1, 2015. Abstract SSJ15-03.
58.
FarhidzadehH.,
ZhouM.,
GoldgofD.B.Prediction of treatment response and metastatic disease in soft tissue
sarcoma. In:
AylwardS.,
HadjiiskiL.M., eds.
Medical Imaging 2014: Computer-Aided Diagnosis. Vol.
9035. San Diego, CA:
SPIE; 2014.
59.
FarhidzadehH.,
ChaudhuryB.,
ZhouM.Prediction of treatment outcome in soft tissue sarcoma based on
radiologically defined habitats. In:
HadjiiskiL.M.,
TourassiG.D., eds.
Medical Imaging 2015: Computer-Aided Diagnosis. Vol.
9414. San Diego, CA:
SPIE; 2015.
60.
FarhidzadehH.,
GoldgofD.B.,
HallL.O.Texture feature analysis to predict metastatic and necrotic soft tissue
sarcomas. Presented at: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics; Hong Kong; October 9–12, 2015.
61.
FarhidzadehH.,
ChaudhuryB.,
ScottJ.G.Signal intensity analysis of ecological defined habitat in soft tissue
sarcomas to predict metastasis development. In:
TourassiG.D.,
ArmatoS.G.Medical Imaging 2016: Computer-Aided Diagnosis.San Diego, CA: SPIE;
2016.
62.
FarhidzadehH.,
GoldgofD.B.,
HallL.O.A quantitative histogrambased approach to predict treatment outcome for soft
tissue sarcomas using pre– and post-treatment MRIs. Presented at: IEEE
International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics; Budapest, Turkey; October 9–12,
2016.
