Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-04-2012 | Original Article

Grading and characterization of soft tissue tumors on magnetic resonance imaging: the value of an expert second opinion report

Authors: F. M. Vanhoenacker, K. Van Looveren, K. Trap, J. Desimpelaere, K. Wouters, P. Van Dyck, P. M. Parizel, A. M. De Schepper

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 2/2012

Abstract

Objective

To retrospectively compare the accuracy of the initial MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) report of referring radiologists and the second opinion report.

Material and methods

MRI of 155 patients presenting with a soft tissue tumor (STT) in a single large community center were referred for inclusion in the Belgian Soft Tissue Neoplasm Registry (BSTNR). The initial report and the second opinion report were made independently. Histopathology (gold standard) was obtained in 90 patients (group 1). In 65 patients, the diagnosis was made by the combination of clinical findings and/or follow-up (group 2). In group 1, the concordance in grading and tissue-specific (TS) diagnosis between the referring center (RC) and expert center (EC) was reviewed.

Results

In group 1, MR grading yields a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 89% in the EC. The sensitivity was 88% and the specificity 81% in the RC. The accuracy was significantly higher in the EC (92%) compared to the RC (83%) (p = 0.039). The TS diagnosis was correct in 50% versus 38.5% of malignant tumors and in 71.8% versus 51.6% of benign tumors in the EC and RC respectively.

Conclusion

A second opinion report increases the accuracy in the diagnosis of STT on MRI.

Main Messages

• A second opinion MRI report increases the overall accuracy in the diagnosis of soft tissue tumors.

• There is a good overall agreement in MR grading between the referring and expert institution.

• In the expert center, there were fewer false-negative and false-positive diagnoses.

• MRI performs better in the tissue-specific diagnosis of benign versus malignant STT.

Lehnhardt M, Daigeler A, Hauser J et al (2008) The value of expert second opinion in diagnosis of soft tissue sarcomas. J Surg Oncol 97:40–43. doi:10.1002/jso.20897PubMedCrossRef

Lehnhardt M, Daigeler A, Homann HH et al (2009) Importance of specialized centers in diagnosis and treatment of extremity-soft tissue sarcomas. Review of 603 cases. Chirurg 80:341–347. doi:10.1007/s00104-008-1562-2PubMedCrossRef

Cormier B, Bonneau C, Kerdraon R, Heitzmann A, Garnaud S, Michenet P (2007) Request of second opinion for difficult diagnosis in surgical pathology. Assessment of a one year activity in a general hospital. Ann Pathol 27:345–351PubMedCrossRef

Randall RL, Bruckner JD, Papenhausen MD, Thurman T, Conrad EU 3rd (2004) Errors in diagnosis and margin determination of soft-tissue sarcomas initially treated at non-tertiary centers. Orthopedics 27:209–212PubMed

Gielen JL, De Schepper AM, Vanhoenacker F et al (2004) Accuracy of MRI in characterization of soft tissue tumors and tumor-like lesions. A prospective study in 548 patients. Eur Radiol 14:2320–2330. doi:10.1007/s00330-004-2431-0PubMedCrossRef

De Schepper AM, Bloem JL (2007) Soft tissue tumors: grading, staging, and tissue-specific diagnosis. Top Magn Reson Imaging 18:431–444. doi:10.1097/rmr.0b013e3181652220PubMedCrossRef

Berquist TH, Ehman RL, King BF, Hodgman CG, Ilstrup DM (1990) Value of MR imaging in differentiating benign from malignant soft-tissue masses: study of 95 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 155:1251–1255PubMedCrossRef

Ma LD, Frassica FJ, McCarthy EF, Bluemke DA, Zerhouni EA (1997) Benign and malignant musculoskeletal masses: MR imaging differentiation with rim-to-center differential enhancement ratios. Radiology 202:739–744PubMedCrossRef

Moulton JS, Blebea JS, Dunco DM, Braley SE, Bisset GS 3rd, Emery KH (1995) MR imaging of soft-tissue masses: diagnostic efficacy and value of distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 164:1191–1199PubMedCrossRef

10.

De Schepper AM, Vanhoenacker F, Gielen J, Parizel PM (2006) Imaging of soft tissue tumors, 3rd edn. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkCrossRef

11.

Fletcher CDM, Unni KK, Mertens F (2002) World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC press, Lyon

12.

Hwang S (2008) Imaging of lymphoma of the musculoskeletal system. Radiol Clin North Am 46:379–396. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2008.03.008, xPubMedCrossRef

13.

Metzler JP, Fleckenstein JL, Vuitch F, Frenkel EP (1992) Skeletal muscle lymphoma: MRI evaluation. Magn Reson Imaging 10:491–494PubMedCrossRef

14.

Vanhoenacker FM, Baten A, Vandeputte V (2009) Imaging findings of a cutaneous B-cell lymphoma. JBR-BTR 92:285–288PubMed

15.

Ruzek KA, Wenger DE (2004) The multiple faces of lymphoma of the musculoskeletal system. Skeletal Radiol 33:1–8. doi:10.1007/s00256-003-0709-yPubMedCrossRef

16.

Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Vourtsi A, Gouliamos A, Vlahos L (1999) Bone lesions with soft-tissue mass: magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of lymphomatous involvement of the bone marrow versus multiple myeloma and bone metastases. Leuk Lymphoma 34:179–184. doi:10.3109/10428199909083395PubMed

17.

Verelst W, Huygh J, Gielen JL, De Schepper AM (2007) Casus: een man met pijn ter hoogte van linkerschouder. Ortho-Rheumato 5:115–117

18.

Sundaram M, Sharafuddin MJ (1995) MR imaging of benign soft-tissue masses. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 3:609–627PubMed

19.

Vandevenne JE, De Schepper AM, De Beuckeleer L et al (1997) New concepts in understanding evolution of desmoid tumors: MR imaging of 30 lesions. Eur Radiol 7:1013–1019PubMedCrossRef

20.

Robbin MR, Murphey MD, Temple HT, Kransdorf MJ, Choi JJ (2001) Imaging of musculoskeletal fibromatosis. Radiographics 21:585–600PubMedCrossRef

21.

Guglielmi G, Cifaratti A, Scalzo G, Magarelli N (2009) Imaging of superficial and deep fibromatosis. Radiol Med 114:1292–1307. doi:10.1007/s11547-009-0458-7PubMedCrossRef

22.

Gaskin CM, Helms CA (2004) Lipomas, lipoma variants, and well-differentiated liposarcomas (atypical lipomas): results of MRI evaluations of 126 consecutive fatty masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:733–739PubMedCrossRef

23.

Toirkens JDSA, Vanhoenacker FM, Van Dyck P, Gielen JL, Creytens D, Wouters K, Eiber M, Wörtler K, Parizel PM (2011) A comparison between histopathology and findings on magnetic resonance imaging of subcutaneous lipomatous soft-tissue tumors. Insights Imaging 2:599–607. doi:10.1007/s13244-011-0107-2PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

24.

Verelst W, Huygh J, Van Marck E, Van Hoenacker P, Gielen J, De Schepper A (2008) Persistent swelling at the ankle joint: presentation, diagnosis and discussion. Skeletal Radiol 37:1135–1136. doi:10.1007/s00256-008-0574-9, 1157–1138PubMedCrossRef

25.

Vanhoenacker FM, Camerlinck M, Somville J (2009) Imaging findings of a subcutaneous angioleiomyoma. JBR-BTR 92:80–82PubMed

26.

Van Hul E, Vanhoenacker F, Van Dyck P, De Schepper A, Parizel PM (2011) Pseudotumoural soft tissue lesions of the foot and ankle: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 2:439–452. doi:10.1007/s13244-011-0087-2PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

27.

Vanhoenacker FM, Eyselbergs M, Van Hul E, Van Dyck P, De Schepper AM (2011) Pseudotumoural soft tissue lesions of the hand and wrist: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 2:319–333. doi:10.1007/s13244-011-0076-5PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

28.

Myhre-Jensen O (1981) A consecutive 7-year series of 1331 benign soft tissue tumours. Clinicopathologic data. Comparison with sarcomas. Acta Orthop Scand 52:287–293PubMedCrossRef

29.

Skov BG, Braendstrup O, Hirsch FR, Lauritzen AF, Nielsen HW, Skov T (1994) Are pathologists biased by clinical information?: A blinded cross-over study of the histopathological diagnosis of mesothelial tumours versus pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer 11:365–372PubMedCrossRef

Title: Grading and characterization of soft tissue tumors on magnetic resonance imaging: the value of an expert second opinion report
Authors: F. M. Vanhoenacker
K. Van Looveren
K. Trap
J. Desimpelaere
K. Wouters
P. Van Dyck
P. M. Parizel
A. M. De Schepper
Publication date: 01-04-2012
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 2/2012
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-012-0151-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Grading and characterization of soft tissue tumors on magnetic resonance imaging: the value of an expert second opinion report

Abstract

Objective

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Main Messages

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Main Messages

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

Erratum to: The future of hybrid imaging—part 3: PET/MR, small-animal imaging and beyond

Metastatic disease to the pancreas: an imaging challenge

Multidetector CT cystography for imaging colovesical fistulas and iatrogenic bladder leaks

Quantification of iron concentration in the liver by MRI

Apparent diffusion coefficient restriction in the white matter: going beyond acute brain territorial ischemia

Results of a survey by the European Society of Radiology (ESR): undergraduate radiology education in Europe—influences of a modern teaching approach