Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perfusion pattern of musculoskeletal masses using contrast-enhanced ultrasound: a helpful tool for characterisation?

  • Ultrasound
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

We report 54 patients with histologically evaluated musculoskeletal masses who underwent grey-scale and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), followed by ultrasound-guided biopsy. We hypothesise that the definition of a CEUS-based enhancement pattern improves the characterisation of tumour malignancy.

Methods

Fifty-four patients with soft-tissue masses were examined according to our standardised ultrasound procedure. After CEUS, quantitative and qualitative perfusion analyses were performed and each mass was assigned to one of four preliminarily defined perfusion patterns (P1–P4). Additionally, mass size and localisation were recorded. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) in the definition of malignancy were calculated for relevant combinations of localisation, size and perfusion pattern.

Results

The single event probability for malignancy was 0% for the P1 and P4 perfusion patterns, and 60% for P2 and 80% for P3. The best combined sensitivity (89%) and specificity (85%) was achieved in a “three-feature combination” of size >3.3 cm, mass location below the superficial fascia and either P2 or P3 perfusion pattern with a PPV of 86% and NPV of 88%.

Conclusion

The proposed definition of perfusion pattern types with CEUS may serve as a new and reliable diagnostic tool for distinguishing malignant soft-tissue masses from their benign counterparts.

Key Points

• CEUS can assess “tumour perfusion”.

• Four typical perfusion patterns are seen on CEUS of musculoskeletal masses.

• Knowledge of tumour size, localisation and perfusion pattern can help patient management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bodner G, Schocke MF, Rachbauer F et al (2002) Differentiation of malignant and benign musculoskeletal tumors: combined color and power Doppler US and spectral wave analysis. Radiology 223:410–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schulte M, von Baer A, Schultheiss M, Scheil-Bertram S (2010) Classification of solid soft tissue tumours by ultrasonography. Ultraschall Med 31:182–1903

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lagalla R, Iovane A, Caruso G, Lo Bello M, Derchi LE (1998) Color Doppler ultrasonography of soft-tissue masses. Acta Radiol 39:421–426

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Widmann G, Riedl A, Schoepf D, Glodny B, Peer S, Gruber H (2009) State-of-the-art HR-US imaging findings of the most frequent musculoskeletal soft-tissue tumors. Skeletal Radiol 38:637–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Berquist TH, Ehman RL, King BF, Hodgman CG, Ilstrup DM (1990) Value of MR imaging in differentiating benign from malignant soft-tissue masses: study of 95 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 155:1251–1255

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Datir A, James SL, Ali K, Lee J, Ahmad M, Saifuddin A (2008) MRI of soft-tissue masses: the relationship between lesion size, depth, and diagnosis. Clin Radiol 63:373–378, discussion 379-380

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Crim JR, Seeger LL, Yao L, Chandnani V, Eckardt JJ (1992) Diagnosis of soft-tissue masses with MR imaging: can benign masses be differentiated from malignant ones? Radiology 185:581–586

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lakkaraju A, Sinha R, Garikipati R, Edward S, Robinson P (2009) Ultrasound for initial evaluation and triage of clinically suspicious soft-tissue masses. Clin Radiol 64:615–621

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Persson BM, Rydholm A (1986) Soft-tissue masses of the locomotor system. A guide to the clinical diagnosis of malignancy. Acta Orthop Scand 57:216–219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pisters PW, Leung DH, Woodruff J, Shi W, Brennan MF (1996) Analysis of prognostic factors in 1,041 patients with localized soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities. J Clin Oncol 14:1679–1689

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wunder JS, Healey JH, Davis AM, Brennan MF (2000) A comparison of staging systems for localized extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer 88:2721–2730

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Woude HJ, Verstraete KL, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH, Hermans J, Bloem JL (1998) Musculoskeletal tumors: does fast dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging contribute to the characterization? Radiology 208:821–828

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Erlemann R, Reiser MF, Peters PE et al (1989) Musculoskeletal neoplasms: static and dynamic Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 171:767–773

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Verstraete KL, De Deene Y, Roels H, Dierick A, Uyttendaele D, Kunnen M (1994) Benign and malignant musculoskeletal lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging—parametric “first-pass” images depict tissue vascularization and perfusion. Radiology 192:835–843

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Zuber-Jerger I, Schacherer D, Woenckhaus M, Jung EM, Scholmerich J, Klebl F (2009) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosing liver malignancy. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 43:109–118

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rettenbacher T (2007) Focal liver lesions: role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 64:173–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jang HJ, Yu H, Kim TK (2009) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the detection and characterization of liver tumors. Cancer Imaging 9:96–103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lassau N, Koscielny S, Opolon P et al (2001) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced color Doppler ultrasound for the quantification of angiogenesis in vivo. Invest Radiol 36:50–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Loizides A, Widmann G, Freuis T, Peer S, Gruber H (2011) Optimizing ultrasound-guided biopsy of musculoskeletal masses by application of an ultrasound contrast agent. Ultraschall Med 32:307–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Jain RK (1987) Transport of molecules in the tumor interstitium: a review. Cancer Res 47:3039–3051

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Jain RK (1988) Determinants of tumor blood flow: a review. Cancer Res 48:2641–2658

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (2008) Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Fifty-ninth World Medical Association General Assembly, Seoul

  24. De Schepper AM, Vanhoenacker F, Gielen J (2006) Imaging of the soft tissue tumors, 3rd edn. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Simon MA, Finn HA (1993) Diagnostic strategy for bone and soft-tissue tumors. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:622–631

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Enzinger FM, Weiss SW (1995) Soft tissue tumors, 3rd edn. Mosby, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  27. Simon MA, Biermann JS (1993) Biopsy of bone and soft-tissue lesions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:616–621

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Brisse H, Orbach D, Klijanienko J, Freneaux P, Neuenschwander S (2006) Imaging and diagnostic strategy of soft tissue tumors in children. Eur Radiol 16:1147–1164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Myhre-Jensen O (1981) A consecutive 7-year series of 1331 benign soft tissue tumours. Clinicopathologic data. Comparison with sarcomas. Acta Orthop Scand 52:287–293

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hussein R, Smith MA (2005) Soft tissue sarcomas: are current referral guidelines sufficient? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 87:171–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Moulton JS, Blebea JS, Dunco DM, Braley SE, Bisset GS 3rd, Emery KH (1995) MR imaging of soft-tissue masses: diagnostic efficacy and value of distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 164:1191–1199

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Daniel A Jr, Ullah E, Wahab S, Kumar V Jr (2009) Relevance of MRI in prediction of malignancy of musculoskeletal system—a prospective evaluation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Balzarini L, Sicilia A, Ceglia E, Tesoro Tess JD, Trecate G, Musumeci R (1996) Magnetic resonance in primary bone tumors: a review of 10 years of activities. Radiol Med 91:344–347

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Alexander Loizides, Siegfried Peer, Michaela Plaikner, Tanja Djurdjevic & Hannes Gruber

Authors
  1. Alexander Loizides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siegfried Peer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michaela Plaikner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tanja Djurdjevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hannes Gruber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Loizides.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loizides, A., Peer, S., Plaikner, M. et al. Perfusion pattern of musculoskeletal masses using contrast-enhanced ultrasound: a helpful tool for characterisation?. Eur Radiol 22, 1803–1811 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2407-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2407-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation