Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2014; 24(03): 225-236
DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.137026
Recent Advances in MSK

Bone tumor mimickers: A pictorial essay

Jennifer Ni Mhuircheartaigh
Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Yu-Ching Lin
Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States; Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Keelung Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
,
Jim S Wu
Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Focal lesions in bone are very common and many of these lesions are not bone tumors. These bone tumor mimickers can include numerous normal anatomic variants and non-neoplastic processes. Many of these tumor mimickers can be left alone, while others can be due to a significant disease process. It is important for the radiologist and clinician to be aware of these bone tumor mimickers and understand the characteristic features which allow discrimination between them and true neoplasms in order to avoid unnecessary additional workup. Knowing which lesions to leave alone or which ones require workup can prevent misdiagnosis and reduce patient anxiety.

Keywords

Bone tumors - MRI artifacts - osteomyelitis - traumatic lesions - tumor mimickers


Publication History

Article published online:
02 August 2021

© 2014. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Boavida P, Muller LS, Rosendahl K. Magnetic resonance imaging of the immature skeleton. Acta Radiol 2013;54:1007-14.
  • 2 Long SS, Yablon CM, Eisenberg RL. Bone marrow signal alteration in the spine and sacrum. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:W178-200.
  • 3 Zajick DC Jr, Morrison WB, Schweitzer ME, Parellada JA, Carrino JA. Benign and malignant processes: Normal values and differentiation with chemical shift MR imaging in vertebral marrow. Radiology 2005;237:590-6.
  • 4 Foster K, Chapman S, Johnson K. MRI of the marrow in the paediatric skeleton. Clin Radiol 2004;59:651-73.
  • 5 Babyn PS, Ranson M, McCarville ME. Normal bone marrow: Signal characteristics and fatty conversion. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1998;6:473-95.
  • 6 Resnick D, Cone RO, 3 rd . The nature of humeral pseudocysts. Radiology 1984;150:27-8.
  • 7 De Wilde V, De Maeseneer M, Lenchik L, Van Roy P, Beeckman P, Osteaux M. Normal osseous variants presenting as cystic or lucent areas on radiography and CT imaging: A pictorial overview. Eur J Radiol 2004;51:77-84.
  • 8 Weissman BN, Sledge CB. Orthopedic Radiology. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 1986.
  • 9 Johnson JF, Brogdon BG. Dorsal effect of the patella: Incidence and distribution. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982;139:339-40.
  • 10 Pitt MJ, Graham AR, Shipman JH, Birkby W. Herniation pit of the femoral neck. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982;138:1115-21.
  • 11 Kavanagh EC, Read P, Carty F, Zoga AC, Parvizi J, Morrison WB. Three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging analysis of hip morphology in the assessment of femoral acetabular impingement. Clin Radiol 2011;66:742-7.
  • 12 Nokes SR, Vogler JB, Spritzer CE, Martinez S, Herfkens RJ. Herniation pits of the femoral neck: Appearance at MR imaging. Radiology 1989;172:231-4.
  • 13 Suh JS, Cho JH, Shin KH, Won JH, Park SJ, Shin DH, et al. MR appearance of distal femoral cortical irregularity (cortical desmoid). J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996;20:328-32.
  • 14 Resnick D, Greenway G. Distal femoral cortical defects, irregularities, and excavations. Radiology 1982;143:345-54.
  • 15 Natsis K. Supracondylar process of the humerus: Study on 375 caucasian subjects in Cologne, Germany. Clin Anat 2008;21:138-41.
  • 16 Camerlinck M, Vanhoenacker FM, Kiekens G. Ultrasound demonstration of Struthers′ ligament. J Clin Ultrasound 2010;38:499-502.
  • 17 Levine AH, Pais MJ, Berinson H, Amenta PS. The soleal line: A cause of tibial pseudoperiostitis. Radiology 1976;119:79-81.
  • 18 Mysorekar VR, Nandedkar AN. The soleal line. Anat Rec 1983;206:447-51.
  • 19 Guillin R, Moser T, Koob M, Khoury V, Chapuis M, Ropars M, et al. Subperiosteal hematoma of the iliac bone: Imaging features of acute and chronic stages with emphasis on pathophysiology. Skeletal Radiol 2012;41:667-75.
  • 20 Malghem J, Maldague B, Claus D, Clapuyt P. Transient cyst-like cortical defects following fractures in children. Medullary fat within the subperiosteal haematoma. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990;72:862-5.
  • 21 Krestan CR, Nemec U, Nemec S. Imaging of insufficiency fractures. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2011;15:198-207.
  • 22 Stacy GS, Kapur A. Mimics of bone and soft tissue neoplasms. Radiol Clin North Am 2011;49:1261-86, vii.
  • 23 Vanden Bossche L, Vanderstraeten G. Heterotopic ossification: A review. J Rehabil Med 2005;37:129-36.
  • 24 Kransdorf MJ, Meis JM, Jelinek JS. Myositis ossificans: MR appearance with radiologic-pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991;157:1243-8.
  • 25 Klapsinou E, Despoina P, Dimitra D. Cytologic findings and potential pitfalls in proliferative myositis and myositis ossificans diagnosed by fine needle aspiration cytology: Report of four cases and review of the literature. Diagn Cytopathol 2012;40:239-44.
  • 26 Werner BC, Pehlivan HC, Hart JM, Lyons ML, Gilmore CJ, Garrett CB, et al. Biceps tenodesis is a viable option for salvage of failed SLAP repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013;pii: S1058-2746.
  • 27 Bain BJ. Bone marrow biopsy morbidity and mortality: 2002 data. Clin Lab Haematol 2004;26:315-8.
  • 28 Gallo J, Goodman SB, Konttinen YT, Raska M. Particle disease: Biologic mechanisms of periprosthetic osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. Innate Immun 2013;19:213-24.
  • 29 Beck RT, Illingworth KD, Saleh KJ. Review of periprosthetic osteolysis in total joint arthroplasty: An emphasis on host factors and future directions. J Orthop Res 2012;30:541-6.
  • 30 Stevens SK, Moore SG, Kaplan ID. Early and late bone-marrow changes after irradiation: MR evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;154:745-50.
  • 31 Kwon JW, Huh SJ, Yoon YC, Choi SH, Jung JY, Oh D, et al. Pelvic bone complications after radiation therapy of uterine cervical cancer: Evaluation with MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191:987-94.
  • 32 Marcocci C, Cianferotti L, Cetani F. Bone disease in primary hyperparathyrodism. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 2012;4:357-68.
  • 33 Parisien M, Silverberg SJ, Shane E, Dempster DW, Bilezikian JP. Bone disease in primary hyperparathyroidism. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 1990;19:19-34.
  • 34 Jain VK, Arya RK, Bharadwaj M, Kumar S. Melorheostosis: Clinicopathological features, diagnosis, and management. Orthopedics 2009;32:512.
  • 35 Singh R, Singh Z, Bala R, Rana P, Sangwan SS. An unusual case of sciatic neuropraxia due to melorheostosis. Joint Bone Spine 2010;77:614-5.
  • 36 Roger D, Bonnetblanc JM, Leroux-Robert C. Melorheostosis with associated minimal change nephrotic syndrome, mesenteric fibromatosis and capillary haemangiomas. Dermatology 1994;188:166-8.
  • 37 Murray RO, McCredie J. Melorheostosis and the sclerotomes: A radiological correlation. Skeletal Radiol 1979;4:57-71.
  • 38 Sonoda LI, Halim MY, Balan KK. Detection of extensive melorheostosis on bone scintigram performed for suspected metastases. Clin Nucl Med 2011;36:240-1.
  • 39 Janssens AM, Offner FC, Van Hove WZ. Bone marrow necrosis. Cancer 2000;88:1769-80.
  • 40 Garcia GM, McCord GC, Kumar R. Hydroxyapatite crystal deposition disease. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2003;7:187-93.
  • 41 Bancroft LW, Blankenbaker DG. Imaging of the tendons about the pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:605-17.
  • 42 Siegal DS, Wu JS, Newman JS, Del Cura JL, Hochman MG. Calcific tendinitis: A pictorial review. Can Assoc Radiol J 2009;60:263-72.
  • 43 Hatzenbuehler J, Pulling TJ. Diagnosis and management of osteomyelitis. Am Fam Physician 2011;84:1027-33.
  • 44 Huang PY, Wu PK, Chen CF, Lee FT, Wu HT, Liu CL, et al. Osteomyelitis of the femur mimicking bone tumors: A review of 10 cases. World J Surg Oncol 2013;11:283.
  • 45 Hankin D, Bowling FL, Metcalfe SA, Whitehouse RA, Boulton AJ. Critically evaluating the role of diagnostic imaging in osteomyelitis. Foot Ankle Spec 2011;4:100-5.
  • 46 De Backer AI, Mortelé KJ, Vanhoenacker FM, Parizel PM. Imaging of extraspinal musculoskeletal tuberculosis. Eur J Radiol 2006;57:119-30.
  • 47 De Vuyst D, Vanhoenacker F, Gielen J, Bernaerts A, De Schepper AM. Imaging features of musculoskeletal tuberculosis. Eur Radiol 2003;13:1809-19.
  • 48 Lebowitz D, Wolter L, Zenklusen C, Chouiter A, Malinverni R.TB determined: Tuberculous osteomyelitis. Am J Med 2014;127:198-201.
  • 49 Morelli JN, Runge VM, Ai F, Attenberger U, Vu L, Schmeets SH, et al. An image-based approach to understanding the physics of MR artifacts. Radiographics 2011;31:849-66.
  • 50 Ojeda-Fournier H, Choe KA, Mahoney MC. Recognizing and interpreting artifacts and pitfalls in MR imaging of the breast. Radiographics 2007;27 Suppl 1 :S147-64.