Glomus tumor: revitalizing concepts

Fabro, Maurício; Fabro, Sara Raquel Madalosso; Klitzke, Bárbara; Araújo, Gustavo Lopes de; Machado, Cesar

doi:10.1590/0100-3984.2014.0090

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evaluation of the musculoskeletal system by imaging methods has been the motivation for a series of recent studies in the radiology literature of Brazil ( 16 - 23 ) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of periosteal reactions in bone sarcomas using conventional radiography as the reference

Neto

Simão

Crema³

et al. 2017

Radiol Bras

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To evaluate the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting periosteal reactions and to compare MRI and conventional radiography (CR) in terms of the classification of periosteal reactions.Materials and Methods:Retrospective study of 42 consecutive patients (mean age, 22 years; 20 men) with a confirmed diagnosis of osteosarcoma or Ewing's sarcoma, MRI and CR images having been acquired pretreatment. Three blinded radiologists detected periosteal reactions and evaluated each periosteal reaction subtype in CR and MRI images: Codman's triangle; laminated; and spiculated. The CR was used as a benchmark to calculate the diagnostic performance. We used the kappa coefficient to assess interobserver reproducibility. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test was used in order to assess contingency between CR and MRI classifications.Results:In the detection of periosteal reactions, MRI showed high specificity, a high negative predictive value, and low-to-moderate sensitivity. For CR and for MRI, the interobserver agreement for periosteal reaction was almost perfect, whereas, for the classification of different subtypes of periosteal reaction, it was higher for the Codman's triangle subtype and lower for the spiculated subtype. There was no significant difference between MRI and CR in terms of the classifications (p < 0.05).Conclusion:We found no difference between MRI and CR in terms of their ability to classify periosteal reactions. MRI showed high specificity and almost perfect interobserver agreement for the detection of periosteal reactions. The interobserver agreement was variable for the different subtypes of periosteal reaction.

show abstract

“…The evaluation of the musculoskeletal system by imaging methods has been the motivation for a series of recent studies in the radiology literature of Brazil ( 16 - 23 ) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%