1997•American Journal of RoentgenologyRequires access

Usefulness of radiography in differentiating enchondroma from central grade 1 chondrosarcoma.

Maartje J. A. Geirnaerdt, J Hermans, J. L. Bloem, Herman M. J. A. Kroon, TL Pope, A. H. M. Taminiau, Pancras C.W. Hogendoorn

Open publisher page 203 citations

Abstract

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 203 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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.

Key concepts: Enchondroma, Medicine, Chondrosarcoma, Radiography, Radiology, Kappa, Malignancy, Chondroma

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Usefulness of radiography in differentiating enchondroma from central grade 1 chondrosarcoma. — Research Paper | ScholarLens