American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 169, 1097-1104, Copyright © 1997 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Usefulness of radiography in differentiating enchondroma from central grade 1 chondrosarcoma

MJ Geirnaerdt, J Hermans, JL Bloem, HM Kroon, TL Pope, AH Taminiau and PC Hogendoorn
Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical symptoms and radiographic features that allow radiologists to differentiate between enchondroma and central grade 1 chondrosarcoma. Such differentiation is important because of differences in management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical symptoms and location and size of 35 enchondromas and 43 central grade 1 chondrosarcomas were analyzed. Radiographic features were assessed independently by three observers. The chi-square test and linear discriminant analysis were used to identify features with discriminating strength. Kappa values were calculated to validate the consistency of observations among observers. A consensus diagnosis made by histology and long-term follow-up was used as the standard. RESULTS: No statistically significant correlation was found between clinical symptoms and the benign or malignant nature of the neoplasms. Grade 1 chondrosarcomas were more likely to be found in the axial skeleton and in flat bones. Also, chondrosarcomas were significantly larger than enchondromas (p < .001). Ill-defined margins and lobulated contours were the only morphologic features seen on radiographs that allowed significant discrimination (p = .004 and .009, respectively). An optimal combination of four radiographic features still left 72 of the 78 lesions with a 10-90% probability of malignancy, indicative of poor discriminating power. Kappa values generally showed poor to fair agreement. CONCLUSION: Location in the axial skeleton and size greater than 5 cm are the most reliable predictors of central grade 1 chondrosarcoma. Morphologic features seen on radiographs and clinical symptoms do not improve the ability to differentiate between enchondromas and central grade 1 chondrosarcomas.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. N. Dass, W. C. G. Peh, T. W. H. Shek, and W. K. Ho Case 139: Nasal Septum Low-Grade Chondrosarcoma Radiology, November 1, 2008; 249(2): 714 - 717. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Gelderblom, P. C.W. Hogendoorn, S. D. Dijkstra, C. S. van Rijswijk, A. D. Krol, A. H.M. Taminiau, and J. V.M.G. Bovee The Clinical Approach Towards Chondrosarcoma Oncologist, March 1, 2008; 13(3): 320 - 329. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. T. Miller Bone Tumors and Tumorlike Conditions: Analysis with Conventional Radiography Radiology, March 1, 2008; 246(3): 662 - 674. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				the Skeletal Lesions Interobserver Correlation amo Reliability of Histopathologic and Radiologic Grading of Cartilaginous Neoplasms in Long Bones J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., October 1, 2007; 89(10): 2113 - 2123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P O'Donnell and P O'Donnell Evaluation of focal bone lesions: basic principles and clinical scenarios Imaging, December 1, 2003; 15(4): 298 - 323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. D. Murphey, E. A. Walker, A. J. Wilson, M. J. Kransdorf, H. T. Temple, and F. H. Gannon From the Archives of the AFIP: Imaging of Primary Chondrosarcoma: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation RadioGraphics, September 1, 2003; 23(5): 1245 - 1278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. W. Marco, S. Gitelis, G. T. Brebach, and J. H. Healey Cartilage Tumors: Evaluation and Treatment J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., September 1, 2000; 8(5): 292 - 304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. A. Geirnaerdt, P. C. W. Hogendoorn, J. L. Bloem, A. H. M. Taminiau, and H.-J. van der Woude Cartilaginous Tumors: Fast Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging Radiology, February 1, 2000; 214(2): 539 - 546. [Abstract] [Full Text]