Radionuclide imaging in the diagnosis of osteoid osteoma
- Authors:
- Jong Hoon Park
- Kisoo Pahk
- Sungeun Kim
- Soon Hyuck Lee
- Sang Heon Song
- Jae Gol Choe
View Affiliations
Affiliations: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul 136‑705, Republic of Korea, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul 136‑705, Republic of Korea, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Bucheon 420-767, Republic of Korea
- Published online on: May 25, 2015 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2015.3258
-
Pages:
1131-1134
Metrics: Total
Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
This article is mentioned in:
Abstract
Oseteoid osteoma is a well-known type of benign bone-forming tumor, which has previously been diagnosed using plain radiograph imaging. However, diagnosis of osteoid osteoma may be delayed due to ambiguities on plain radiograph images; despite the increasing use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), this type of misdiagnosis is not uncommon. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of radionuclide imaging scans for the diagnosis of osteoid osteoma, as this form of imaging was proposed to be a more sensitive test. The characteristics of 18 cases of osteoid osteoma were analyzed based on diagnostic imaging and the time from initial recognition of symptoms by the patient to diagnosis. Diagnostic modalities included plain radiograph, computed tomography (CT), MRI and radionuclide imaging. Among the 18 patients, 14 patients had unique positive findings in plain radiographs. The mean duration between initial cognition of symptoms to the diagnosis for these patients was 5.2 months (range, 3.8‑9.3 months). A total of 4 patients exhibited no radiographic abnormalities in the initial plain radiographs and were diagnosed a mean of 18.5 months (range, 17‑20 months) following the onset of symptoms. Overall, radionuclide imaging was performed on 16 patients and all of the cases demonstrated positive findings. In these cases, 28.6% of osteoid osteoma patients with clinical indications revealed no abnormal findings in plain radiographs. Therefore, in situations such as these, radionuclide imaging may be a useful indicator for diagnosis, as these results have demonstrated that it positively identified all cases of osteoid osteoma. In addition, the results of the present study indicated that if the radionuclide imaging was positive, CT scan was a more valuable diagnostic tool, whereas if the radionuclide imaging was negative, MRI should be recommended for the diagnosis of other undiscovered disease entities.
View Figures |
Figure 1
|
 |
Figure 2
|
 |
Figure 3
|
 |
Figure 4
|
 |
Figure 5
|
 |
Figure 6
|
View References
|
1
|
Klein MJ, Parisien MV and Schneider-Stock
R: Osteoid osteomaWorld Health Organization Classification of
Tumours, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. Fletcher
CDM, Unni KK and Mertens F: IARC Press; Lyon: pp. 260–261. 2002
|
|
2
|
Schajowicz F and Lemos C: Osteoid osteoma
and osteoblastoma. Closely related entities of osteoblastic
derivation. Acta Orthop Scand. 41:272–291. 1970. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
3
|
Sim FH, Dahlin CD and Beabout JW:
Osteoid-osteoma: Diagnostic problems. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
57:154–159. 1975.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
4
|
Swee RG, McLeod RA and Beabout JW: Osteoid
osteoma. Detection, diagnosis and localization. Radiology.
130:117–123. 1979. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
5
|
Hosalkar HS, Garg S, Moroz L, Pollack A
and Dormans JP: The diagnostic accuracy of MRI versus CT imaging
for osteoid osteoma in children. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
433:171–177. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
6
|
Kransdorf MJ, Stull MA, Gilkey FW and
Moser RP Jr: Osteoid osteoma. Radiographics. 11:671–696. 1991.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
7
|
Greenspan A: Benign bone-forming lesions:
Osteoma, osteoid osteoma and osteoblastoma. Clinical, imaging,
pathologic and differential considerations. Skeletal Radiol.
22:485–500. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
8
|
Sabanas AO, Bickel WH and Moe JH: Natural
history of osteoid osteoma of the spine; review of the literature
and report of three cases. Am J Surg. 91:880–889. 1956. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
9
|
Ebrahimzadeh MH, Ahmadzadeh-Chabock H and
Ebrahimzadeh AR: Osteoid osteoma: A diagnosis for radicular pain of
extremities. Orthopedics. 32:8212009.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
10
|
Georgoulis AD, Papageorgiou CD, Moebius
UG, Rossis J, Papadnikolakis A and Soucacos PN: The diagnostic
dilemma created by osteoid osteoma that presents as knee pain.
Arthroscopy. 18:32–37. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
11
|
Greenspan A, Jundt G and Remagen W: Bone
forming (osteogenic) lesionsDifferential Diagnosis in Orthopaedic
Oncology. 2nd. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Philadelphia, PA:
pp. 40–157. 2006
|
|
12
|
Chai JW, Hong SH, Choi JY, Koh YH, Lee JW,
Choi JA and Kang HS: Radiologic diagnosis of osteoid osteoma: From
simple to challenging findings. Radiographics. 30:737–749. 2010.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
13
|
Helms CA, Hattner RS and Vogler JB III:
Osteoid osteoma: Radionuclide diagnosis. Radiology. 151:779–784.
1984. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
14
|
Davies M, Cassar-Pullicino VN, Davies AM,
et al: The diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging in osteoid osteoma.
Skeletal Radiol. 31:559–569. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
15
|
Emery DJ, Shojania KG, Forster AJ,
Mojaverian N and Feasby TE: Overuse of magnetic resonance imaging.
JAMA Intern Med. 13:823–825. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
|
