HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE COVER ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a letter to the editor Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Edeiken, J. Articles by Karasick, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Edeiken, J. Articles by Karasick, D.

CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Vol 37, 239-245, Copyright © 1987 by American Cancer Society

Imaging in Bone Cancer

¹ Professor of Radiology in the Department of Diagnostic Radiology at The University of Texas System Cancer Center, M.D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, in Houston, Texas.
² Associate Professor of Radiology in the Department of Diagnostic Radiology at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

CT and MRI are about equally effective in the study of bone cancer. CT has the advantage of better spatial resolution, allowing a definitive evaluation of cortical bone destruction. Moreover, the technique is more advanced and the equipment is readily available. Because MRI has better contrast resolution, it has advantages in defining soft tissue and marrow involvement (Figs. 6 and 7), and it can define vascular relationships without contrast enhancement. Other advantages are its use of non-ionizing radiation and its ability to reconstruct both direct coronal and sagittal views.

In a study of 22 patients, CT and MRI demonstrated almost equal success in defining the extent of tumor in the medullary canal, joint involvement, cortical destruction, neurovascular involvement, and fat involvement. However, MRI was more successful in defining muscle involvement (see Table). [SEE TABLE IN SOURCE PDF].