Grading and Characterization of Soft Tissue Tumors on Magnetic Resonance Imaging: the Value of an Expert Second Opinion Report

Overview

Journal Insights Imaging

Publisher Springer

Specialty Radiology

Date 2012 Jun 15

PMID 22696039

Citations 8

Authors

F M Vanhoenacker

K Van Looveren

K Trap

J Desimpelaere

K Wouters

P Van Dyck

P M Parizel

A M De Schepper

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

[Importance and implementation of radiological modalities in the diagnostics of soft tissue tumors].

Grund C, Kerner D, Driulini D, Schneider G Radiologie (Heidelb). 2024; 64(9):728-738.

PMID: 39110144 DOI: 10.1007/s00117-024-01348-3.

Soft tissue tumor imaging in adults: European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology-Guidelines 2023-overview, and primary local imaging: how and where?.

Noebauer-Huhmann I, Vanhoenacker F, Vilanova J, Tagliafico A, Weber M, Lalam R Eur Radiol. 2023; 34(7):4427-4437.

PMID: 38062268 PMC: 11213759. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10425-5.

The added value of the visual analysis of DWI in post-surgery follow-up of soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities: do we really need ADC?.

Zampa V, Aringhieri G, Tintori R, Rossi P, Andreani L, Franchi A Radiol Med. 2023; 128(4):467-479.

PMID: 36995546 PMC: 10119252. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-023-01613-w.

Does the apparent diffusion coefficient from diffusion-weighted MRI imaging aid in the characterization of malignant soft tissue tumors and sarcomas.

Gowda P, Bajaj G, Duarte Silva F, Ashikyan O, Xi Y, Chhabra A Skeletal Radiol. 2023; 52(8):1475-1484.

PMID: 36725723 DOI: 10.1007/s00256-023-04289-5.

The Neoplastic Side of the Abdominal Wall: A Comprehensive Pictorial Essay of Benign and Malignant Neoplasms.

Porrello G, Cannella R, Alvarez-Hornia Perez E, Brancatelli G, Vernuccio F Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(2).

PMID: 36673126 PMC: 9858284. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13020315.

References

Gaskin C, Helms C . Lipomas, lipoma variants, and well-differentiated liposarcomas (atypical lipomas): results of MRI evaluations of 126 consecutive fatty masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 182(3):733-9. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.182.3.1820733. View

Verelst W, Huygh J, Van Marck E, Van Hoenacker P, Gielen J, De Schepper A . Persistent swelling at the ankle joint: presentation, diagnosis and discussion. Skeletal Radiol. 2008; 37(12):1135-6, 1157-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-008-0574-9. View

Randall R, Bruckner J, Papenhausen M, Thurman T, Conrad 3rd E . Errors in diagnosis and margin determination of soft-tissue sarcomas initially treated at non-tertiary centers. Orthopedics. 2004; 27(2):209-12. DOI: 10.3928/0147-7447-20040201-14. View

Cormier B, Bonneau C, Kerdraon R, Heitzmann A, Garnaud S, Michenet P . [Request of second opinion for difficult diagnosis in surgical pathology. Assessment of a one year activity in a general hospital]. Ann Pathol. 2008; 27(5):345-51. DOI: 10.1016/s0242-6498(07)78273-1. View

Gielen J, De Schepper A, Vanhoenacker F, Parizel P, Wang X, Sciot R . Accuracy of MRI in characterization of soft tissue tumors and tumor-like lesions. A prospective study in 548 patients. Eur Radiol. 2004; 14(12):2320-30. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2431-0. View

Vandevenne J, De Schepper A, De Beuckeleer L, Marck E, Aparisi F, Bloem J . New concepts in understanding evolution of desmoid tumors: MR imaging of 30 lesions. Eur Radiol. 1997; 7(7):1013-9. DOI: 10.1007/s003300050243. View

Berquist T, Ehman R, King B, Hodgman C, Ilstrup D . Value of MR imaging in differentiating benign from malignant soft-tissue masses: study of 95 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990; 155(6):1251-5. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.155.6.2122675. View

De Schepper A, Bloem J . Soft tissue tumors: grading, staging, and tissue-specific diagnosis. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2008; 18(6):431-44. DOI: 10.1097/rmr.0b013e3181652220. View

Hwang S . Imaging of lymphoma of the musculoskeletal system. Radiol Clin North Am. 2008; 46(2):379-96, x. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2008.03.008. View

10.

Metzler J, Fleckenstein J, Vuitch F, Frenkel E . Skeletal muscle lymphoma: MRI evaluation. Magn Reson Imaging. 1992; 10(3):491-4. DOI: 10.1016/0730-725x(92)90522-2. View

11.

Vanhoenacker F, Eyselbergs M, Van Hul E, Van Dyck P, De Schepper A . Pseudotumoural soft tissue lesions of the hand and wrist: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2012; 2(3):319-333. PMC: 3259322. DOI: 10.1007/s13244-011-0076-5. View

12.

Myhre-Jensen O . A consecutive 7-year series of 1331 benign soft tissue tumours. Clinicopathologic data. Comparison with sarcomas. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981; 52(3):287-93. DOI: 10.3109/17453678109050105. View

13.

Vanhoenacker F, Baten A, Vandeputte V . Imaging findings of a cutaneous B-cell lymphoma. JBR-BTR. 2010; 92(6):285-8. View

14.

Robbin M, Murphey M, Temple H, Kransdorf M, Choi J . Imaging of musculoskeletal fibromatosis. Radiographics. 2001; 21(3):585-600. DOI: 10.1148/radiographics.21.3.g01ma21585. View

15.

Skov B, Braendstrup O, Hirsch F, Lauritzen A, Nielsen H, Skov T . Are pathologists biased by clinical information?: A blinded cross-over study of the histopathological diagnosis of mesothelial tumours versus pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer. 1994; 11(5-6):365-72. DOI: 10.1016/0169-5002(94)92165-2. View

16.

Moulton J, Blebea J, Dunco D, Braley S, Bisset 3rd G, Emery K . MR imaging of soft-tissue masses: diagnostic efficacy and value of distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995; 164(5):1191-9. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.164.5.7717231. View

17.

Sundaram M, Sharafuddin M . MR imaging of benign soft-tissue masses. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1995; 3(4):609-27. View

18.

Vanhoenacker F, Camerlinck M, Somville J . Imaging findings of a subcutaneous angioleiomyoma. JBR-BTR. 2009; 92(2):80-2. View

19.

Ma L, Frassica F, McCarthy E, Bluemke D, Zerhouni E . Benign and malignant musculoskeletal masses: MR imaging differentiation with rim-to-center differential enhancement ratios. Radiology. 1997; 202(3):739-44. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.202.3.9051028. View

20.

Lehnhardt M, Daigeler A, Hauser J, Puls A, Soimaru C, Kuhnen C . The value of expert second opinion in diagnosis of soft tissue sarcomas. J Surg Oncol. 2007; 97(1):40-3. DOI: 10.1002/jso.20897. View