The appropriate and sequential value of standard radiograph, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging to characterize a bone tumor.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 04 2022
13 04 2022
Historique:
received:
15
11
2021
accepted:
28
03
2022
entrez:
14
4
2022
pubmed:
15
4
2022
medline:
16
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Radiographs (XR), computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are regularly analyzed to determine whether a bone lesion is benign or malignant. An online quiz was created providing 15 cases with a clinical summary, MRI, CT, and XR. After each image, participants were asked to rate the probability (0-100%) the bone tumor was malignant. Order and difficulty of the images were randomly determined. Probability statements regarding the diagnosis were actualized along the sequence of exam, to quantify how the degree of belief changed to account for evidence from those exams. 64 physicians participated and provided 154 assessments from 1 (n = 18) to 3 (n = 44) different cases. After the first image, participants favored the correct malignancy status at 70%; 80% after the second and 80% after the third one. Participants were more likely to favor the correct malignancy status when the lesion was malignant and when first confronted with XR or CT, rather than MRI, though the most predictive factor of correct diagnosis was the difficulty of the case. In conclusion, the additional information provided by successive imaging studies was moderate. XR or CT seemed more appropriate than MRI as first imaging study. Bypassing XR should be discouraged.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35418602
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-10218-8
pii: 10.1038/s41598-022-10218-8
pmc: PMC9008011
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6196Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 1999 Jul;31(2):147-67
pubmed: 10451800
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Nov;470(11):3240-5
pubmed: 22610528
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Apr;(397):83-8
pubmed: 11953599
Eur Radiol. 2021 Oct;31(10):7637-7652
pubmed: 33765161
Radiology. 1980 Mar;134(3):577-83
pubmed: 6928321
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Jan 7;97(1):10-5
pubmed: 25568389
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Mar;473(3):868-74
pubmed: 24777726
J Digit Imaging. 2017 Oct;30(5):640-647
pubmed: 28752323
BMC Cancer. 2008 Jan 23;8:22
pubmed: 18215297
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2018 Mar;49(1):84-89
pubmed: 30479294
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Jul;207(1):150-6
pubmed: 27070373
Cancer Imaging. 2004 Mar 29;4(2):74-83
pubmed: 18250012
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A Suppl 2:84-90
pubmed: 15691112
Eur J Radiol. 1998 May;27 Suppl 1:S77-85
pubmed: 9652506
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84
pubmed: 18046031
Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2012 May;9(2):92-5
pubmed: 23087718
Radiol Clin North Am. 2002 Sep;40(5):971-90
pubmed: 12462464
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Apr;75(4):622-31
pubmed: 8478392
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Mar;81(3):317-25
pubmed: 10199269
Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 1995 Jun;9(3):571-604
pubmed: 7649943
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Dec;82(12):2083-91
pubmed: 22209430