Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in assessing the resection margins of primary malignant bone tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resected primary malignant bone tumour specimens removed from 46 patients (27 male; mean age: 48±22 years) were imaged using MRI (fat-saturated proton density-weighted and three-dimensional fat-suppressed T1-weighted gradient-recalled-echo) and CT immediately after surgery. A radiologist and an orthopaedist evaluated bone and soft-tissue margins of the specimens on both examinations. Histological evaluation was performed by a senior orthopaedic oncology pathologist. Margins were classified as R0 (safe margins), R1 (residuals between 0 and 1 mm), and R2 (macroscopic residuals). Cohen's k, chi-square, and McNemar's statistics were used. RESULTS: Having histology as the reference standard, reproducibility of the radiologist ranged from moderate (k=0.544) to substantial (k=0.741) for bone and soft-tissue margins on CT, respectively, while that of the orthopaedist ranged from fair (k=0.316) to moderate (k=0.548). When comparing R2 and R0+R1 scores, reproducibility of readers' evaluation of bone margins increased ranging from substantial (k=0.655) to perfect (k=1.000). Inter-reader agreement ranged from fair (k=0.308) to substantial (k=0.633). Accuracy of the radiologist and orthopaedist ranged from 76% to 83% and from 68% to 72%, respectively. When comparing R2 and R0+R1 scores, the accuracy of both readers ranged from 83% to 100%. There was no association between local recurrence and margin scores of histology, MRI, and CT (p≥0.058). CONCLUSIONS: MRI and CT may be useful for extemporaneous analysis of resection margins of primary malignant bone tumours, although wide accuracy variability between the different imaging methods was observed.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 736.e13-736.e21 |
| Journal | Clinical Radiology |
| Volume | 74 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Sep 1 2019 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Cite this
Accuracy of CT and MRI to assess resection margins in primary malignant bone tumours having histology as the reference standard. / Cannavò, L.; Albano, D.; Messina, C.; Corazza, A.; Rapisarda, S.; Pozzi, G.; Di Bernardo, A.; Parafioriti, A.; Scotto, G.; Perrucchini, G.; Luzzati, A.; Sconfienza, L. M.
In: Clinical Radiology, Vol. 74, No. 9, 01.09.2019, p. 736.e13-736.e21.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Accuracy of CT and MRI to assess resection margins in primary malignant bone tumours having histology as the reference standard
AU - Cannavò, L.
AU - Albano, D.
AU - Messina, C.
AU - Corazza, A.
AU - Rapisarda, S.
AU - Pozzi, G.
AU - Di Bernardo, A.
AU - Parafioriti, A.
AU - Scotto, G.
AU - Perrucchini, G.
AU - Luzzati, A.
AU - Sconfienza, L. M.
PY - 2019/9/1
Y1 - 2019/9/1
N2 - AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in assessing the resection margins of primary malignant bone tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resected primary malignant bone tumour specimens removed from 46 patients (27 male; mean age: 48±22 years) were imaged using MRI (fat-saturated proton density-weighted and three-dimensional fat-suppressed T1-weighted gradient-recalled-echo) and CT immediately after surgery. A radiologist and an orthopaedist evaluated bone and soft-tissue margins of the specimens on both examinations. Histological evaluation was performed by a senior orthopaedic oncology pathologist. Margins were classified as R0 (safe margins), R1 (residuals between 0 and 1 mm), and R2 (macroscopic residuals). Cohen's k, chi-square, and McNemar's statistics were used. RESULTS: Having histology as the reference standard, reproducibility of the radiologist ranged from moderate (k=0.544) to substantial (k=0.741) for bone and soft-tissue margins on CT, respectively, while that of the orthopaedist ranged from fair (k=0.316) to moderate (k=0.548). When comparing R2 and R0+R1 scores, reproducibility of readers' evaluation of bone margins increased ranging from substantial (k=0.655) to perfect (k=1.000). Inter-reader agreement ranged from fair (k=0.308) to substantial (k=0.633). Accuracy of the radiologist and orthopaedist ranged from 76% to 83% and from 68% to 72%, respectively. When comparing R2 and R0+R1 scores, the accuracy of both readers ranged from 83% to 100%. There was no association between local recurrence and margin scores of histology, MRI, and CT (p≥0.058). CONCLUSIONS: MRI and CT may be useful for extemporaneous analysis of resection margins of primary malignant bone tumours, although wide accuracy variability between the different imaging methods was observed.
AB - AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in assessing the resection margins of primary malignant bone tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resected primary malignant bone tumour specimens removed from 46 patients (27 male; mean age: 48±22 years) were imaged using MRI (fat-saturated proton density-weighted and three-dimensional fat-suppressed T1-weighted gradient-recalled-echo) and CT immediately after surgery. A radiologist and an orthopaedist evaluated bone and soft-tissue margins of the specimens on both examinations. Histological evaluation was performed by a senior orthopaedic oncology pathologist. Margins were classified as R0 (safe margins), R1 (residuals between 0 and 1 mm), and R2 (macroscopic residuals). Cohen's k, chi-square, and McNemar's statistics were used. RESULTS: Having histology as the reference standard, reproducibility of the radiologist ranged from moderate (k=0.544) to substantial (k=0.741) for bone and soft-tissue margins on CT, respectively, while that of the orthopaedist ranged from fair (k=0.316) to moderate (k=0.548). When comparing R2 and R0+R1 scores, reproducibility of readers' evaluation of bone margins increased ranging from substantial (k=0.655) to perfect (k=1.000). Inter-reader agreement ranged from fair (k=0.308) to substantial (k=0.633). Accuracy of the radiologist and orthopaedist ranged from 76% to 83% and from 68% to 72%, respectively. When comparing R2 and R0+R1 scores, the accuracy of both readers ranged from 83% to 100%. There was no association between local recurrence and margin scores of histology, MRI, and CT (p≥0.058). CONCLUSIONS: MRI and CT may be useful for extemporaneous analysis of resection margins of primary malignant bone tumours, although wide accuracy variability between the different imaging methods was observed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067851385&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067851385&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.crad.2019.05.022
DO - 10.1016/j.crad.2019.05.022
M3 - Article
C2 - 31255248
AN - SCOPUS:85067851385
VL - 74
SP - 736.e13-736.e21
JO - Clinical Radiology
JF - Clinical Radiology
SN - 0009-9260
IS - 9
ER -