Top

European Radiology

Published in:

01-01-2018 | Musculoskeletal

What are the differentiating clinical and MRI-features of enchondromas from low-grade chondrosarcomas?

Authors: Hassan Douis, M. Parry, S. Vaiyapuri, A. M. Davies

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the role of clinical assessment, conventional and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in differentiating enchondromas from chondrosarcomas of long bone.

Methods

The following clinical and MRI findings were assessed: age, gender, pain, pain attributable to lesion, tumour location, tumour length, presence, depth of endosteal scalloping, bone marrow oedema, soft tissue oedema, cortical destruction, periosteal reaction, bone expansion, macroscopic fat, calcification, soft tissue mass, haemorrhage, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Clinical and MRI findings were compared with histopathological grading.

Results

Sixty patients with central chondroid tumours were included (27 enchondromas, 10 cartilaginous lesions of unknown malignant potential, 15 grade 1 chondrosarcomas, 8 high-grade chondrosarcomas). Pain attributed to lesion, tumour length, endosteal scalloping > 2/3, cortical destruction, bone expansion and soft tissue mass were differentiating features between enchondromas and grade 1 chondrosarcomas. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI could not differentiate enchondromas from grade 1 chondrosarcomas.

Conclusions

Previously reported imaging signs of chondrosarcomas are useful in the diagnosis of grade 1 lesions but have lower sensitivity than in higher grade lesions. Deep endosteal scalloping is the most sensitive imaging sign of grade 1 chondrosarcomas. Pain due to the lesion is an important clinical sign of grade 1 chondrosarcomas. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is not useful in differentiating enchondromas from grade 1 chondrosarcomas.

Key Points

• Differentiation of enchondroma from low-grade chondrosarcoma is challenging for radiologists and pathologists.

• The utility of clinical assessment, conventional and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI was uncertain.

• Clinical assessment and conventional MRI aid in differentiating enchondromas from low-grade chondrosarcoma.

• Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI cannot differentiate enchondromas from grade 1 chondrosarcoma.

Available only for authorised users

Hogendoorn PCW, Bovee J, Nielsen GP (2013) World health organization classification of tumours of soft tissue and bone. In: Fletcher CDM, Bridge JA, Hogendoorn PCW, Mertens F (ed). IARCPress, Lyon, pp 264–268

Hong ED, Carrino JA, Weber KL, Fayad LM (2011) Prevalence of shoulder enchondromas on routine MR imaging. Clin Imaging 35:378–384CrossRefPubMed

Stomp W, Reijnierse M, Kloppenburg M et al (2015) Prevalence of cartilaginous tumours as an incidental finding on MRI of the knee. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3764-6 PubMedCentral

Walden MJ, Murphey MD, Vidal JA (2008) Incidental enchondromas of the knee. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1611–1615CrossRefPubMed

(2007) Reliability of histopathologic and radiologic grading of cartilaginous neoplasms in long bones. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:2113–2123

Eefting D, Schrage YM, Geirnaerdt MJ et al (2009) Assessment of interobserver variability and histologic parameters to improve reliability in classification and grading of central cartilaginous tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 33:50–57CrossRefPubMed

Logie CI, Walker EA, Forsberg JA, Potter BK, Murphey MD (2013) Chondrosarcoma: a diagnostic imager's guide to decision making and patient management. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 17:101–115CrossRefPubMed

Murphey MD, Flemming DJ, Boyea SR, Bojescul JA, Sweet DE, Temple HT (1998) Enchondroma versus chondrosarcoma in the appendicular skeleton: differentiating features. Radiographics 18:1213–1237, quiz 1244-1215CrossRefPubMed

De Coninck T, Jans L, Sys G et al (2013) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiation between enchondroma and chondrosarcoma. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2913-z PubMed

10.

Choi BB, Jee WH, Sunwoo HJ et al (2013) MR differentiation of low-grade chondrosarcoma from enchondroma. Clin Imaging 37:542–547CrossRefPubMed

11.

Ferrer-Santacreu EM, Ortiz-Cruz EJ, Gonzalez-Lopez JM, Perez Fernandez E (2012) Enchondroma versus low-grade chondrosarcoma in appendicular skeleton: clinical and radiological criteria. J Oncol 2012:437958CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Crim J, Schmidt R, Layfield L, Hanrahan C, Manaster BJ (2015) Can imaging criteria distinguish enchondroma from grade 1 chondrosarcoma? Eur J Radiol 84:2222–2230CrossRefPubMed

13.

Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Mangham DC, Abudu A, Fiorenza F (2000) Chondrosarcoma of bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82-A:1203–1204CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lee FY, Mankin HJ, Fondren G et al (1999) Chondrosarcoma of bone: an assessment of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:326–338CrossRefPubMed

15.

Campanacci DA, Scoccianti G, Franchi A et al (2013) Surgical treatment of central grade 1 chondrosarcoma of the appendicular skeleton. J Orthop Traumatol 14:101–107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Hanna SA, Whittingham-Jones P, Sewell MD et al (2009) Outcome of intralesional curettage for low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:1343–1347CrossRefPubMed

17.

Souna BS, Belot N, Duval H, Langlais F, Thomazeau H (2010) No recurrences in selected patients after curettage with cryotherapy for grade I chondrosarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:1956–1962CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Verdegaal SH, Brouwers HF, van Zwet EW, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH (2012) Low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones treated with intralesional curettage followed by application of phenol, ethanol, and bone-grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:1201–1207CrossRefPubMed

19.

Geirnaerdt MJ, Hogendoorn PC, Bloem JL, Taminiau AH, van der Woude HJ (2000) Cartilaginous tumors: fast contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 214:539–546CrossRefPubMed

20.

Bui KL, Ilaslan H, Bauer TW, Lietman SA, Joyce MJ, Sundaram M (2009) Cortical scalloping and cortical penetration by small eccentric chondroid lesions in the long tubular bones: not a sign of malignancy? Skelet Radiol 38:791–796CrossRef

21.

Douis H, Singh L, Saifuddin A (2014) MRI differentiation of low-grade from high-grade appendicular chondrosarcoma. Eur Radiol 24:232–240CrossRefPubMed

22.

Yoo HJ, Hong SH, Choi JY et al (2009) Differentiating high-grade from low-grade chondrosarcoma with MR imaging. Eur Radiol 19:3008–3014CrossRefPubMed

23.

Douis H, Jeys L, Grimer R, Vaiyapuri S, Davies AM (2015) Is there a role for diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in the diagnosis of central cartilage tumors? Skelet Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00256-015-2123-7

Title: What are the differentiating clinical and MRI-features of enchondromas from low-grade chondrosarcomas?
Authors: Hassan Douis
M. Parry
S. Vaiyapuri
A. M. Davies
Publication date: 01-01-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4947-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

What are the differentiating clinical and MRI-features of enchondromas from low-grade chondrosarcomas?

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Bone marrow oedema predicts bone collapse in paediatric and adolescent leukaemia patients with corticosteroid-induced osteonecrosis

Different patterns of longitudinal brain and spinal cord changes and their associations with disability progression in NMO and MS

MRI of the scrotum: Recommendations of the ESUR Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group

Comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging between turbo spin-echo and echo-planar imaging of the head and neck

Feasibility of superb microvascular imaging to detect high-grade vesicoureteral reflux in children with urinary tract infection

Incremental diagnostic value of targeted biopsy using mpMRI-TRUS fusion versus 14-fragments prostatic biopsy: a prospective controlled study