Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 8/2019

01-08-2019 | Musculoskeletal

Conventional MR and diffusion-weighted imaging of musculoskeletal soft tissue malignancy: correlation with histologic grading

Authors: Avneesh Chhabra, Oganes Ashikyan, Chenelle Slepicka, Nathan Dettori, Helena Hwang, Alexandra Callan, Rohit R. Sharma, Yin Xi

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate proven soft tissue musculoskeletal malignancies blinded to their Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer histologic grades to identify the predictive values of conventional MR findings and best fit region of interest (ROI) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements.

Materials and methods

Fifty-one consecutive patients with different histologic grades were evaluated by four readers (R1–4) of different experience levels. Quantitatively, the maximum longitudinal size, tumor to muscle signal intensity ratios, and ADC measurements and, qualitatively, the spatial location of the tumor, its signal alterations, heterogeneity, intralesional hemorrhage or fat, and types of enhancement were assessed. Intraclass correlation, weighted kappa, ANOVA, and Fisher exact tests were used.

Results

There were 22/51 (43%) men (mean age ± SD = 52 ± 16 years) and 29/51 (57%) women (mean age ± SD = 54± 17 years), with the majority of tumors 38/51 (75%) in the lower extremities. Histologic grades were I in 8/51 (16%), II in 17/51 (33%), and III in 26/51 (51%), respectively. The longitudinal dimensions were different among three grades (p = 0.0015), largest with grade I. More central enhancements and deep locations were seen in grade III tumors (p = 0.0191, 0.0246). The ADC mean was significantly lower in grade III than in grade I or II (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.04). The ADC min was significantly lower in grade III than in grade I (p = 0.02). Good to excellent agreements were seen for T1/T2 tumor/muscle ratios, longitudinal dimension, and ADC (ICC = 0.60–0.98).

Conclusion

Longitudinal tumor dimension, central enhancement, and ADC values differentiate histology grades in musculoskeletal soft tissue malignancy with good to excellent inter-reader reliability.

Key Points

• The longitudinal tumor dimension of grade III malignancy is smaller than that of grade I (p < 0.0001), and higher-grade tumors are located deeper (p = 0.0246).
• The ADC mean is significantly lower in grade III than in grade I or grade II (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.04).
• The ADC minimum is significantly lower in grade III than in grade I (p = 0.02).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
3.
go back to reference Murphey MD, Gibson MS, Jennings BT, Crespo-Rodríguez AM, Fanburg-Smith J, Gajewski DA (2006) From the archives of the AFIP: imaging of synovial sarcoma with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 26:1543–1565. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.265065084 Murphey MD, Gibson MS, Jennings BT, Crespo-Rodríguez AM, Fanburg-Smith J, Gajewski DA (2006) From the archives of the AFIP: imaging of synovial sarcoma with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 26:1543–1565. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1148/​rg.​265065084
5.
go back to reference Coran A, Ortolan P, Attar S et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of lipomatous soft-tissue tumors. In Vivo 31:387–395 Coran A, Ortolan P, Attar S et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of lipomatous soft-tissue tumors. In Vivo 31:387–395
13.
18.
19.
go back to reference Ahlawat S, Khandheria P, Del Grande F et al (2016) Interobserver variability of selective region-of-interest measurement protocols for quantitative diffusion weighted imaging in soft tissue masses: comparison with whole tumor volume measurements. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:446–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24994 CrossRefPubMed Ahlawat S, Khandheria P, Del Grande F et al (2016) Interobserver variability of selective region-of-interest measurement protocols for quantitative diffusion weighted imaging in soft tissue masses: comparison with whole tumor volume measurements. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:446–454. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​jmri.​24994 CrossRefPubMed
22.
26.
go back to reference van Rijswijk CS, Kunz P, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH, Doornbos J, Bloem JL (2002) Diffusion-weighted MRI in the characterization of soft-tissue tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 15:302–307 van Rijswijk CS, Kunz P, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH, Doornbos J, Bloem JL (2002) Diffusion-weighted MRI in the characterization of soft-tissue tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 15:302–307
28.
go back to reference Oka K, Yakushiji T, Sato H, Hirai T, Yamashita Y, Mizuta H (2010) The value of diffusion-weighted imaging for monitoring the chemotherapeutic response of osteosarcoma: a comparison between average apparent diffusion coefficient and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient. Skeletal Radiol 39:141–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-009-0830-7 Oka K, Yakushiji T, Sato H, Hirai T, Yamashita Y, Mizuta H (2010) The value of diffusion-weighted imaging for monitoring the chemotherapeutic response of osteosarcoma: a comparison between average apparent diffusion coefficient and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient. Skeletal Radiol 39:141–146. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00256-009-0830-7
30.
31.
go back to reference Del Grande F, Ahlawat S, Subhawong T, Fayad LM (2017) Characterization of indeterminate soft tissue masses referred for biopsy: what is the added value of contrast imaging at 3.0 tesla? J Magn Reson Imaging 45:390–400 Del Grande F, Ahlawat S, Subhawong T, Fayad LM (2017) Characterization of indeterminate soft tissue masses referred for biopsy: what is the added value of contrast imaging at 3.0 tesla? J Magn Reson Imaging 45:390–400
Metadata
Title
Conventional MR and diffusion-weighted imaging of musculoskeletal soft tissue malignancy: correlation with histologic grading
Authors
Avneesh Chhabra
Oganes Ashikyan
Chenelle Slepicka
Nathan Dettori
Helena Hwang
Alexandra Callan
Rohit R. Sharma
Yin Xi
Publication date
01-08-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5845-9

Other articles of this Issue 8/2019

European Radiology 8/2019 Go to the issue