MRI Evaluation of Suspected Pathologic Fracture at the Extremities from Metastasis: Diagnostic Value of Added Diffusion-Weighted Imaging
- Author:
Sun Young PARK
1
;
Min Hee LEE
;
Ji Young JEON
;
Hye Won CHUNG
;
Sang Hoon LEE
;
Myung Jin SHIN
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Functional MRI; Diffusion; Fracture; Neoplasm metastasis; Extremities
- MeSH: Cross-Over Studies; Diffusion; Ethics Committees, Research; Extremities; Fractures, Spontaneous; Humans; Informed Consent; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Neoplasm Metastasis; Retrospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology 2019;20(5):812-822
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic value of combining diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiating between pathologic and traumatic fractures at extremities from metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study and informed consent was waived. This study included 49 patients each with pathologic and traumatic fractures at extremities. The patients underwent conventional MRI combined with DWI. For qualitative analysis, two radiologists (R1 and R2) independently reviewed three imaging sets with a crossover design using a 5-point scale and a 3-scale confidence level: DWI plus non-enhanced MRI (NEMR; DW set), NEMR plus contrast-enhanced fat-saturated T1-weighted imaging (CEFST1; CE set), and DWI plus NEMR plus CEFST1 (combined set). McNemar's test was used to compare the diagnostic performances among three sets and perform subgroup analyses (single vs. multiple bone abnormality, absence/presence of extra-osseous mass, and bone enhancement at fracture margin). RESULTS: Compared to the CE set, the combined set showed improved diagnostic accuracy (R1, 84.7 vs. 95.9%; R2, 91.8 vs. 95.9%, p < 0.05) and specificity (R1, 71.4% vs. 93.9%, p < 0.005; R2, 85.7% vs. 98%, p = 0.07), with no difference in sensitivities (p > 0.05). In cases of absent extra-osseous soft tissue mass and present fracture site enhancement, the combined set showed improved accuracy (R1, 82.9–84.4% vs. 95.6–96.3%, p < 0.05; R2, 90.2–91.1% vs. 95.1–95.6%, p < 0.05) and specificity (R1, 68.3–72.9% vs. 92.7–95.8%, p < 0.005; R2, 83.0–85.4% vs. 97.6–98.0%, p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Combining DWI with conventional MRI improved the diagnostic accuracy and specificity while retaining sensitivity for differentiating between pathologic and traumatic fractures from metastasis at extremities.
