Grade 1 and 2 Chondrosarcomas of the Chest Wall: CT Imaging Features and Review of the Literature

Abstract

The purpose of our retrospective article is to review the CT imaging features of chondrosarcomas of the chest wall with pathologic correlation. For 26 subjects with biopsy-proven chondrosarcomas of the chest wall, two musculoskeletal radiologists retrospectively reviewed 26 CT scans in consensus. Descriptive statistics were performed. The mean tumor size was 57 mm. Twenty (20/26, 77%) chondrosarcomas were located in the ribs and six (6/26, 23%) in the sternum. The majority were lytic (19/26, 73%) with <25% calcification (15/26, 58%), and with a soft tissue mass (22/27, 85%). In this study CT features of grade 1 chondrosarcoma overlapped with those of grade 2 tumors. In conclusion, chondrosarcomas of the chest wall are generally lytic with an associated soft tissue mass, showing little calcified matrix and low-to-intermediate grade.

Editorial on Special Issue “Skeletal Radiology”

“…The imaging of the temporomandibular joint and postoperative findings of common foot and ankle surgeries are the topics of two of the included image-rich reviews that discuss common skeletal findings [16,17]. Notably, one article delves into posteromedial lesions of the chest wall, while the other focuses on reviewing grade 1 and 2 chondrosarcomas of the chest wall, providing crucial insights into accurate diagnosis and treatment planning for these complex cases [18,19].…”

A CT-based radiomics nomogram for predicting histologic grade and outcome in chondrosarcoma

“…This is because low-grade and high-grade CS share similar radiological features, such as deep endosteal scalloping, calcification, cortical destruction, and soft tissue masses [ 6 ]. Additionally, Del Grande F et al found no statistically significant difference in mean tumor size between grade I CS (56 mm) and grade II CS (57 mm) [ 9 ]. Consequently, a preferred imaging-based modality, such as radiomics, is crucial to develop and provide more reliable preoperative characteristics for differentiating between low-grade and high-grade CS.…”