The minimally invasive image-guided approach to musculoskeletal (MSK) malignancy requires mastery of multiple different imaging modalities. The therapeutic approach can include embolization, thermal ablation, cement consolidation, and percutaneous screw fixation.[1] While some treatments require one specific modality and approach, others might be best performed using multiple modalities or techniques in concert.[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] The challenges to the approach are often due to the wide spectrum of disease presentation related to variable tumor biology, location, size, and vascularity. A firm familiarity with the latest advancements in imaging equipment and software can improve the patient-tailored approach.
Several recent advances in medical imaging can improve minimally invasive treatment options for MSK malignancy. For example, innovation in hardware and software applications has improved the quality of anatomical detail to facilitate visualization of tumor and surrounding critical structures. Needle guidance and fusion capabilities have expanded the treatment potential by expanding the potential combined applications of multiple imaging modalities. The proper application of these technological improvements requires a basic understanding of specific imaging parameters and the underlying medical imaging physics.
This article will review the latest advancements and applications for ultrasound , fluoroscopy, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as applied to the treatment of MSK malignancy. Basic technical information will be reviewed, as will imaging optimization techniques to improve procedural outcomes and safety for both the patient and proceduralist. Lastly, new software technologies and future directions will be presented for each imaging modality that may assist in treatment approach or assessment of immediate procedural effect.
References
1
Kurup AN,
Callstrom MR.
Expanding role of percutaneous ablative and consolidative treatments for musculoskeletal tumours. Clin Radiol 2017; 72 (08) 645-656
3
Nakatsuka A,
Yamakado K,
Maeda M.
, et al. Radiofrequency ablation combined with bone cement injection for the treatment of bone malignancies. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004; 15 (07) 707-712
6
Claudon M,
Dietrich CF,
Choi BI.
, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver--update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultraschall Med 2013; 34 (01) 11-29
9
Bang N,
Bachmann Nielsen M,
Vejborg I,
Mellon Mogensen A.
Clinical report: contrast enhancement of tumor perfusion as a guidance for biopsy. Eur J Ultrasound 2000; 12 (02) 159-161
10
Pass B,
Jafari M,
Rowbotham E,
Hensor EMA,
Gupta H,
Robinson P.
Do quantitative and qualitative shear wave elastography have a role in evaluating musculoskeletal soft tissue masses?. Eur Radiol 2017; 27 (02) 723-731
12
Jones AK,
Balter S,
Rauch P,
Wagner LK.
Medical imaging using ionizing radiation: optimization of dose and image quality in fluoroscopy. Med Phys 2014; 41 (01) 014301
13
Euler A,
Solomon J,
Marin D,
Nelson RC,
Samei E.
A third-generation adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique: phantom study of image noise, spatial resolution, lesion detectability, and dose reduction potential. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018; 210 (06) 1301-1308
15
Solomon J,
Mileto A,
Ramirez-Giraldo JC,
Samei E.
Diagnostic performance of an advanced modeled iterative reconstruction algorithm for low-contrast detectability with a third-generation dual-source multidetector CT scanner: potential for radiation dose reduction in a multireader study. Radiology 2015; 275 (03) 735-745
18
Jones AK,
Dixon RG,
Collins JD,
Walser EM,
Nikolic B.
; on behalf of the Society of Interventional Radiology Health and Safety Committee. Best practices guidelines for CT-guided interventional procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29 (04) 518-519
19
Siewerdsen JH,
Jaffray DA.
Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: magnitude and effects of x-ray scatter. Med Phys 2001; 28 (02) 220-231
21
Bai M,
Liu B,
Mu H,
Liu X,
Jiang Y.
The comparison of radiation dose between C-arm flat-detector CT (DynaCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT): a phantom study. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81 (11) 3577-3580
23
Jones AK.
Abstract 1017: An Apples to Apples Comparison of Radiation Dose and Image Quality between Flat Panel CT and Multidetector CT. Society of Interventional Radiology Annual Meeting. Los Angeles, CA; 2018
27
Napoli A,
Anzidei M,
Ciolina F.
, et al. MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound: current status of an emerging technology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2013; 36 (05) 1190-1203
30
Wansapura JP,
Daniel BL,
Vigen KK,
Butts K.
In vivo MR thermometry of frozen tissue using R2* and signal intensity. Acad Radiol 2005; 12 (09) 1080-1084
32
Kanal E,
Barkovich AJ,
Bell C.
, et al; Expert Panel on MR Safety. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37 (03) 501-530
33 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Radiation Dose Management for Fluoroscopically-Guided Interventional Medical Procedures. NCRP Report 168. Bethesda, MD: NCRP; 2011
34 IEC. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical Electrical Equipment–Part 2–43: Particular Requirements for the Basic Safety and Essential Performance of X-Ray Equipment for Interventional Procedures, IEC 60601–2-43 ed 2.0. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission; 2010