Imaging report and data system (RADS) for bone tumors: where do we stand and future directions

Ribeiro, Guilherme Jaquet; Gillet, Romain; Blum, Alain; Teixeira, Pedro Augusto Gondim

doi:10.1007/s00256-022-04179-2

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, three report and data systems (RADSs) are available for focal bone lesions, but probably none are sufficiently mature for wide-scale application. 19 Improvement of RADSs for focal bone lesions is the aim of several ongoing studies, and more robust systems will likely become available. Artificial intelligence has also been used for the detection, segmentation, classification, and prognostic evaluation of focal bone lesions but with limited impact on current practice for now.…”

Section: Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial Evaluation of Focal Bone Lesions: How Do We Do It?

Gondim Teixeira,

Lemore,

Vogt

et al. 2023

Semin Musculoskelet Radiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial Evaluation of Focal Bone Lesions: How Do We Do It?

Gondim Teixeira,

Lemore,

Vogt

et al. 2023

Semin Musculoskelet Radiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This information may help to better define the role of CT in this scenario with potential diagnostic and therapeutic implications. 15…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial Characterization of Focal Bone Lesions with Conventional Radiographs or Computed Tomography: Diagnostic Performance and Interobserver Agreement Assessment

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To ascertain the role of CT and conventional radiographs for the initial characterization of focal bone lesions. Methods: Images from 184 patients with confirmed bone tumors included in an ethics committee-approved study were retrospectively evaluated. The reference for benign-malignant distribution was based on histological analysis and long-term follow-up. Radiographs and CT features were analyzed by 2 independent musculoskeletal radiologists blinded to the final diagnosis. Lesion margins, periosteal reaction, cortical lysis, endosteal scalloping, presence of pathologic fracture, and lesion mineralization were evaluated. Results: The benign-malignant distribution in the study population was 68.5–31.5% (126 benign and 58 malignant). In the lesions that could be seen in both radiographs and CT, the performance of these methods for the benign-malignant differentiation was similar (accuracy varying from 72.8% to 76.5%). The interobserver agreement for the overall evaluation of lesion aggressiveness was considerably increased on CT compared to radiographs (Kappa of .63 vs .22). With conventional radiographs, 18 (9.7%) and 20 (10.8%) of the lesions evaluated were not seen respectively by readers 1 and 2. Among these unseen lesions, 50%–61.1% were located in the axial skeleton. Compared to radiographs, the number of lesions with cortical lysis and endosteal scalloping was 26–34% higher with CT. Conclusion: Although radiographs remain the primary imaging tool for lesions in the peripheral skeleton, CT should be performed for axial lesions. CT imaging can assess the extent of perilesional bone lysis more precisely than radiographs with a better evaluation of lesion fracture risk.

show abstract

“…Further, the differential diagnosis of bone tumors includes bone infections, which requires distinct management. Although report and data systems (RADS) have been developed to guide the characterization of bone lesions [ 1 ], it is still a great challenge for radiologists to make diagnosis due to their confusing appearance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some special issues should be taken into consideration for the development of DL-based diagnosis of bone lesions. First, the primary role of imaging in clinical practice for bone lesions is not establishing an etiological diagnosis, rather answering fundamental questions regarding patient management [ 1 ]. Most of the current models aim to classify bone tumors according to their malignancy [ 2 – 6 ].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, they neglect to take into account the confusing situation of infections. Both malignancy bone tumors and infections are classified as Bone-RADS-4, which means further treatment is necessary [ 1 ]. The model developed by Ye et al [ 7 ] has included the infections and therefore can better correspond to the Bone-RADS, and it is expected to improve the practicality and pertinence of the model.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation