Suspected Primary Bone Tumors

Variant: 1 Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography area of interest	Usually Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 2 Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. No lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	O
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 3 Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Benign appearance. Not osteoid osteoma. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT area of interest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Image-guided biopsy area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 4 Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Osteoid osteoma suspected on radiographs or osteoid osteoma suspected based on clinical presentation with no lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	Varies
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT area of interest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	Varies
US area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Image-guided biopsy area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 5 Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Indeterminate or aggressive appearance for malignancy. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Image-guided biopsy area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Panel Members

Shivani Ahlawat, MD^a; Leon Lenchik, MD^b; Jonathan C. Baker, MD^c; Hailey Allen, MD^d; James Banks, MD^e; Vaia Florou, MD, MS^f; Hillary W. Garner, MD^g; Matthew R. Hammer, MD^h; Susan M. Hiniker, MDⁱ; Sarah I. Kamel, MD^j; Yi Lu, MD, PhD^k; Kimberly S. Peairs, MD^l; Jinel A. Scott, ^m; Daniel E. Wessell, MD, PhDⁿ.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Initial imaging.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 1: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Initial imaging.
B. Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest

Variant 1: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Initial imaging.
C. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Initial imaging.
D. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Initial imaging.
E. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Initial imaging.
F. FDG-PET/CT whole body

Variant 1: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Initial imaging.
G. MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Initial imaging.
H. MRI area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Initial imaging.
I. Radiography area of interest

Variant 1: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Initial imaging.
J. US area of interest

Variant 2: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. No lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.

Variant 2: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. No lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 2: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. No lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.
B. Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest

Variant 2: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. No lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.
C. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. No lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.
D. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. No lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.
E. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. No lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.
F. FDG-PET/CT whole body

Variant 2: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. No lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.
G. MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. No lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.
H. MRI area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. No lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.
I. US area of interest

Variant 3: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Benign appearance. Not osteoid osteoma. Next imaging study.

Variant 3: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Benign appearance. Not osteoid osteoma. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 3: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Benign appearance. Not osteoid osteoma. Next imaging study.
B. Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest

Variant 3: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Benign appearance. Not osteoid osteoma. Next imaging study.
C. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Benign appearance. Not osteoid osteoma. Next imaging study.
D. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Benign appearance. Not osteoid osteoma. Next imaging study.
E. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Benign appearance. Not osteoid osteoma. Next imaging study.
F. FDG-PET/CT whole body

Variant 3: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Benign appearance. Not osteoid osteoma. Next imaging study.
G. Image-guided biopsy area of interest

Variant 3: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Benign appearance. Not osteoid osteoma. Next imaging study.
H. MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Benign appearance. Not osteoid osteoma. Next imaging study.
I. MRI area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Benign appearance. Not osteoid osteoma. Next imaging study.
J. US area of interest

Variant 4: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Osteoid osteoma suspected on radiographs or osteoid osteoma suspected based on clinical presentation with no lesions on radiographs. Next imaging study.

Variant 5: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Indeterminate or aggressive appearance for malignancy. Next imaging study.

Variant 5: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Indeterminate or aggressive appearance for malignancy. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 5: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Indeterminate or aggressive appearance for malignancy. Next imaging study.
B. Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest

Variant 5: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Indeterminate or aggressive appearance for malignancy. Next imaging study.
C. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Indeterminate or aggressive appearance for malignancy. Next imaging study.
D. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Indeterminate or aggressive appearance for malignancy. Next imaging study.
E. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Indeterminate or aggressive appearance for malignancy. Next imaging study.
F. FDG-PET/CT whole body

Variant 5: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Indeterminate or aggressive appearance for malignancy. Next imaging study.
G. Image-guided biopsy area of interest

Variant 5: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Indeterminate or aggressive appearance for malignancy. Next imaging study.
H. MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Indeterminate or aggressive appearance for malignancy. Next imaging study.
I. MRI area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult or child. Suspected primary bone tumor. Lesion on radiographs. Indeterminate or aggressive appearance for malignancy. Next imaging study.
J. US area of interest

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Fletcher CDM, World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. WHO classification of tumours of soft tissue and bone. 5th ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2020.
2.	National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER). Cancer Stat Facts: Bone and Joint Cancer. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/bones.html.
3.	Bucolo GM, Ascenti V, Barbera S, et al. Virtual Non-Contrast Spectral CT in Renal Masses: Is It Time to Discard Conventional Unenhanced Phase?. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 12(14), 2023 Jul 17.
4.	Demehri S, Baffour FI, Klein JG, et al. Musculoskeletal CT Imaging: State-of-the-Art Advancements and Future Directions. Radiology 2023;308:e230344.
5.	Liang H, Du S, Yan G, et al. Dual-energy CT of the pancreas: comparison between virtual non-contrast images and true non-contrast images in the detection of pancreatic lesion. Abdominal Radiology. 48(8):2596-2603, 2023 08.Abdom Radiol. 48(8):2596-2603, 2023 08.
6.	McCoombe K, Dobeli K, Meikle S, Llewellyn S, Kench P. Sensitivity of virtual non-contrast dual-energy CT urogram for detection of urinary calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. European Radiology. 32(12):8588-8596, 2022 Dec.
7.	Stern C, Graf DN, Bouaicha S, Wieser K, Rosskopf AB, Sutter R. Virtual non-contrast images calculated from dual-energy CT shoulder arthrography improve the detection of intraarticular loose bodies. Skeletal Radiology. 51(8):1639-1647, 2022 Aug.
8.	Stern C, Marcon M, Bouaicha S, Wieser K, Rosskopf AB, Sutter R. Dual energy CT arthrography in shoulder instability: successful iodine removal with virtual non-contrast images and accurate 3D reformats of the glenoid for assessment of bone loss. Skeletal Radiology. 51(5):1027-1036, 2022 May.Skeletal Radiol. 51(5):1027-1036, 2022 May.
9.	Verstraeten S, Ansems J, Ommen WV, Linden DV, Looijmans F, Tesselaar E. Comparison of true non-contrast and virtual non-contrast images in the characterization of renal lesions using detector-based spectral CT. British Journal of Radiology. 96(1149):20220157, 2023 Sep.
10.	Lodwick GS. A probabilistic approach to the diagnosis of bone tumors. Radiol Clin North Am. 1965;3(3):487-497.
11.	Madewell JE, Ragsdale BD, Sweet DE. Radiologic and pathologic analysis of solitary bone lesions. Part I: internal margins. Radiol Clin North Am. 19(4):715-48, 1981 Dec.
12.	Ragsdale BD, Madewell JE, Sweet DE. Radiologic and pathologic analysis of solitary bone lesions. Part II: periosteal reactions. Radiol Clin North Am. 19(4):749-83, 1981 Dec.
13.	Sweet DE, Madewell JE, Ragsdale BD. Radiologic and pathologic analysis of solitary bone lesions. Part III: matrix patterns. Radiol Clin North Am. 19(4):785-814, 1981 Dec.
14.	Oudenhoven LF, Dhondt E, Kahn S, et al. Accuracy of radiography in grading and tissue-specific diagnosis--a study of 200 consecutive bone tumors of the hand. Skeletal Radiol. 35(2):78-87, 2006 Feb.
15.	Caracciolo JT, Temple HT, Letson GD, Kransdorf MJ. A Modified Lodwick-Madewell Grading System for the Evaluation of Lytic Bone Lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 207(1):150-6, 2016 Jul.
16.	Crim J, Schmidt R, Layfield L, Hanrahan C, Manaster BJ. Can imaging criteria distinguish enchondroma from grade 1 chondrosarcoma?. Eur J Radiol. 84(11):2222-30, 2015 Nov.
17.	Geirnaerdt MJ, Hermans J, Bloem JL, et al. Usefulness of radiography in differentiating enchondroma from central grade 1 chondrosarcoma. AJR. 1997; 169(4):1097-1104.
18.	Frank JA, Ling A, Patronas NJ, et al. Detection of malignant bone tumors: MR imaging vs scintigraphy. AJR. 1990; 155(5):1043-1048.
19.	Niitsu M, Takeda T. Solitary hot spots in the ribs on bone scan: value of thin-section reformatted computed tomography to exclude radiography-negative fractures. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003;27:469-74.
20.	Azar A, Garner HW, Rhodes NG, Yarlagadda B, Wessell DE. CT Attenuation Values Do Not Reliably Distinguish Benign Sclerotic Lesions From Osteoblastic Metastases in Patients Undergoing Bone Biopsy. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 216(4):1022-1030, 2021 04.
21.	Elangovan SM, Sebro R. Accuracy of CT Attenuation Measurement for Differentiating Treated Osteoblastic Metastases From Enostoses. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 210(3):615-620, 2018 Mar.
22.	Ulano A, Bredella MA, Burke P, et al. Distinguishing Untreated Osteoblastic Metastases From Enostoses Using CT Attenuation Measurements. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 207(2):362-8, 2016 Aug.
23.	Murphey MD, Suhardja A, Senchak L, Walker E, Fanburg-Smith J, Kransdorf MJ. Imaging of unusual complications of non-ossifying fibroma. Skeletal Radiol 2016;45:1158.
24.	Gruenewald LD, Koch V, Gruber-Rouh T, et al. MR angiography facilitates the differentiation of aneurysmal from unicameral bone cysts. Br J Radiol 2023;96:20220849.
25.	Josip E, Kremser C, Haider B, Thaler M, Dammerer D, Henninger B. MRI analysis of simple and aneurysmal bone cysts in the proximal humerus: what actually matters in clinical routine. Skeletal Radiology. 51(4):819-827, 2022 Apr.
26.	McDermott MB, Kyriakos M, McEnery K. Painless osteoid osteoma of the rib in an adult. A case report and a review of the literature. Cancer 1996;77:1442-9.
27.	Sharma P, Mukherjee A, Karunanithi S, et al. 99mTc-Methylene diphosphonate SPECT/CT as the one-stop imaging modality for the diagnosis of osteoid osteoma. Nucl Med Commun. 35(8):876-83, 2014 Aug.
28.	Gondim Teixeira PA, Lecocq S, Louis M, et al. Wide area detector CT perfusion: can it differentiate osteoid osteomas from other lytic bone lesions?. Diagn Interv Imaging. 95(6):587-94, 2014 Jun.
29.	Sundaram M, McLeod RA. MR imaging of tumor and tumorlike lesions of bone and soft tissue. AJR. 1990; 155(4):817-824.
30.	Assoun J, Richardi G, Railhac JJ, et al. Osteoid osteoma: MR imaging versus CT. Radiology. 1994;191(1):217-223.
31.	Crenn V, Vezole L, Bouhamama A, et al. Percutaneous Core Needle Biopsy Can Efficiently and Safely Diagnose Most Primary Bone Tumors. Diagnostics. 11(9), 2021 Aug 27.
32.	Efthymiadis A, Tsikopoulos K, Uddin F, et al. Which is the optimal minimally invasive treatment for osteoid osteoma of the hip? A systematic review and proportional meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Science. 27(2):456-462, 2022 Mar.
33.	Liu PT, Chivers FS, Roberts CC, Schultz CJ, Beauchamp CP. Imaging of osteoid osteoma with dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2003 Jun;227(3):691-700.
34.	Davies M, Cassar-Pullicino VN, Davies AM, McCall IW, Tyrrell PN. The diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging in osteoid osteoma. Skeletal Radiol. 2002; 31(10):559-569.
35.	Ahmed S, Jubouri S, Mulligan M. Incidental long bone cartilage lesions: is any further imaging workup needed?. Skeletal Radiol. 50(6):1189-1196, 2021 Jun.
36.	Akoh CC, Craig E, Troester AM, Miller BJ. Radiographic Enchondroma Surveillance: Assessing Clinical Outcomes and Costs Effectiveness. Iowa Orthopaedic Journal. 39(1):185-193, 2019.
37.	Sharma P, Dhull VS, Reddy RM, et al. Hybrid SPECT-CT for characterizing isolated vertebral lesions observed by bone scintigraphy: comparison with planar scintigraphy, SPECT, and CT. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013;19(1):33-40.
38.	Bui KL, Ilaslan H, Bauer TW, Lietman SA, Joyce MJ, Sundaram M. Cortical scalloping and cortical penetration by small eccentric chondroid lesions in the long tubular bones: not a sign of malignancy?. Skeletal Radiol. 38(8):791-6, 2009 Aug.
39.	Collins MS, Koyama T, Swee RG, Inwards CY. Clear cell chondrosarcoma: radiographic, computed tomographic, and magnetic resonance findings in 34 patients with pathologic correlation. Skeletal Radiol. 32(12):687-94, 2003 Dec.
40.	Murphey MD, wan Jaovisidha S, Temple HT, Gannon FH, Jelinek JS, Malawer MM. Telangiectatic osteosarcoma: radiologic-pathologic comparison. Radiology. 2003; 229(2):545-553.
41.	Panicek DM, Gatsonis C, Rosenthal DI, et al. CT and MR imaging in the local staging of primary malignant musculoskeletal neoplasms: Report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology. 1997;202(1):237-246.
42.	Yuan Y, Zhang Y, Lang N, Li J, Yuan H. Differentiating malignant vertebral tumours from non-malignancies with CT spectral imaging: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(10):2945-2950.
43.	Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, et al. FDG PET of primary benign and malignant bone tumors: standardized uptake value in 52 lesions. Radiology. 2001; 219(3):774-777.
44.	Bredella MA, Essary B, Torriani M, Ouellette HA, Palmer WE. Use of FDG-PET in differentiating benign from malignant compression fractures. Skeletal Radiology. 37(5):405-13, 2008 May.
45.	Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Griffeth LK, et al. Benign versus malignant intraosseous lesions: discrimination by means of PET with 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Radiology. 1996; 200(1):243-247.
46.	Liu F, Zhang Q, Zhu D, et al. Performance of Positron Emission Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Using Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose for the Diagnosis, Staging, and Recurrence Assessment of Bone Sarcoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 94(36):e1462, 2015 Sep.
47.	Shin DS, Shon OJ, Han DS, Choi JH, Chun KA, Cho IH. The clinical efficacy of (18)F-FDG-PET/CT in benign and malignant musculoskeletal tumors. Ann Nucl Med. 22(7):603-9, 2008 Aug.
48.	Treglia G, Salsano M, Stefanelli A, Mattoli MV, Giordano A, Bonomo L. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET and PET/CT in patients with Ewing sarcoma family tumours: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. [Review]. Skeletal Radiol. 41(3):249-56, 2012 Mar.
49.	Wang CK, Li CW, Hsieh TJ, Chien SH, Liu GC, Tsai KB. Characterization of bone and soft-tissue tumors with in vivo 1H MR spectroscopy: initial results. Radiology. 232(2):599-605, 2004 Aug.
50.	Shin DS, Shon OJ, Byun SJ, Choi JH, Chun KA, Cho IH. Differentiation between malignant and benign pathologic fractures with F-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Skeletal Radiol. 37(5):415-21, 2008 May.
51.	Feldman F, Van Heertum R, Saxena C, Parisien M. 18FDG-PET applications for cartilage neoplasms. Skeletal Radiol. 34(7):367-74, 2005 Jul.
52.	Younis MH, Abu-Hijleh HA, Aldahamsheh OO, Abualruz A, Thalib L. Meta-Analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Primary Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas by 18F-FDG-PET. Medical Principles & Practice. 29(5):465-472, 2020.
53.	Liu F, Zhang Q, Zhou D, Dong J. Effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and staging of osteosarcoma: a meta-analysis of 26 studies. BMC Cancer. 19(1):323, 2019 Apr 05.
54.	Feydy A, Anract P, Tomeno B, Chevrot A, Drape JL. Assessment of vascular invasion by musculoskeletal tumors of the limbs: use of contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Radiology. 238(2):611-21, 2006 Feb.
55.	Seeger LL, Widoff BE, Bassett LW, Rosen G, Eckardt JJ. Preoperative evaluation of osteosarcoma: value of gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging. AJR. 1991; 157(2):347-351.
56.	Swan JS, Grist TM, Sproat IA, Heiner JP, Wiersma SR, Heisey DM. Musculoskeletal neoplasms: preoperative evaluation with MR angiography. Radiology. 1995; 194(2):519-524.
57.	Geirnaerdt MJ, Hogendoorn PC, Bloem JL, Taminiau AH, van der Woude HJ. Cartilaginous tumors: fast contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2000; 214(2):539-546.
58.	Deckers C, Steyvers MJ, Hannink G, Schreuder HWB, de Rooy JWJ, Van Der Geest ICM. Can MRI differentiate between atypical cartilaginous tumors and high-grade chondrosarcoma? A systematic review. Acta Orthopaedica. 91(4):471-478, 2020 08.
59.	Arevalo-Perez J, Peck KK, Lyo JK, Holodny AI, Lis E, Karimi S. Differentiating benign from malignant vertebral fractures using T1 -weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(4):1039-1047.
60.	Verstraete KL, De Deene Y, Roels H, Dierick A, Uyttendaele D, Kunnen M. Benign and malignant musculoskeletal lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging--parametric "first-pass" images depict tissue vascularization and perfusion. Radiology. 1994; 192(3):835-843.
61.	Campbell RS, Grainger AJ, Mangham DC, Beggs I, Teh J, Davies AM. Intraosseous lipoma: report of 35 new cases and a review of the literature. Skeletal Radiol. 2003; 32(4):209-222.
62.	Si MJ, Wang CS, Ding XY, et al. Differentiation of primary chordoma, giant cell tumor and schwannoma of the sacrum by CT and MRI. Eur J Radiol. 82(12):2309-15, 2013 Dec.
63.	Hogeboom WR, Hoekstra HJ, Mooyaart EL, et al. MRI or CT in the preoperative diagnosis of bone tumours. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1992; 18(1):67-72.
64.	Bloem JL, Taminiau AH, Eulderink F, Hermans J, Pauwels EK. Radiologic staging of primary bone sarcoma: MR imaging, scintigraphy, angiography, and CT correlated with pathologic examination. Radiology. 1988; 169(3):805-810.
65.	Lange MB, Nielsen ML, Andersen JD, Lilholt HJ, Vyberg M, Petersen LJ. Diagnostic accuracy of imaging methods for the diagnosis of skeletal malignancies: A retrospective analysis against a pathology-proven reference. Eur J Radiol. 85(1):61-67, 2016 Jan.
66.	Douis H, Davies AM, Jeys L, Sian P. Chemical shift MRI can aid in the diagnosis of indeterminate skeletal lesions of the spine. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(4):932-940.
67.	Liu LP, Cui LB, Zhang XX, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Bone Malignancy: Evidence From a Meta-Analysis. [Review]. Medicine (Baltimore). 94(45):e1998, 2015 Nov.
68.	Thawait SK, Marcus MA, Morrison WB, Klufas RA, Eng J, Carrino JA. Research synthesis: what is the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging to discriminate benign from malignant vertebral compression fractures? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(12):E736-744.
69.	Fayad LM, Wang X, Salibi N, et al. A feasibility study of quantitative molecular characterization of musculoskeletal lesions by proton MR spectroscopy at 3 T. AJR. 2010; 195(1):W69-75.
70.	Wang LJ, Wu HB, Wang M, et al. Utility of F-18 FDG PET/CT on the evaluation of primary bone lymphoma. Eur J Radiol. 84(11):2275-9, 2015 Nov.
71.	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
72.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.