Errors in the MRI evaluation of musculoskeletal tumors and tumorlike lesions

Robert Heck, Aran M. O'Malley, Ethan L. Kellum, Timothy B. Donovan, Andrew Ellzey, Dexter A. Witte

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Interpretation of an MRI of a suspected musculoskeletal neoplasm can be extremely difficult. Fifty-six MRIs originally evaluated by outside radiologists were independently evaluated by an expert panel consisting of three specialized musculoskeletal radiologists. The outside reports were then graded based upon accuracy and completeness of the differential diagnosis. We compared the expert opinions with those of the outside radiologists. According to the expert panel, only 30 of the 56 (54%) outside reports listed the most likely diagnosis as such and only 35 (63%) listed it at all. A complete appropriate differential diagnosis was listed in only 22 (39%) of the outside reports. Furthermore, 18 (32%) of the outside reports listed diagnoses judged to be extremely unlikely by the experts. In a subset of 15 patients with images that the expert panel had judged diagnostic of specific entities, only nine of the outside reports listed the correct diagnosis as such and only 10 listed it at all. Furthermore, 11 (73%) of the outside reports listed extremely unlikely possibilities for these diagnostic images. We found a substantial difference between the expert and the outside opinions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)28-33
Number of pages6
JournalClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
Issue number459
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2007

Fingerprint

Expert Testimony
Differential Diagnosis
Neoplasms
Radiologists

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Errors in the MRI evaluation of musculoskeletal tumors and tumorlike lesions. / Heck, Robert; O'Malley, Aran M.; Kellum, Ethan L.; Donovan, Timothy B.; Ellzey, Andrew; Witte, Dexter A.

In: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 459, 01.01.2007, p. 28-33.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Heck, Robert ; O'Malley, Aran M. ; Kellum, Ethan L. ; Donovan, Timothy B. ; Ellzey, Andrew ; Witte, Dexter A. / Errors in the MRI evaluation of musculoskeletal tumors and tumorlike lesions. In: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2007 ; No. 459. pp. 28-33.
@article{9c95b4a1ef1841a695bb25f88026743a,
title = "Errors in the MRI evaluation of musculoskeletal tumors and tumorlike lesions",
abstract = "Interpretation of an MRI of a suspected musculoskeletal neoplasm can be extremely difficult. Fifty-six MRIs originally evaluated by outside radiologists were independently evaluated by an expert panel consisting of three specialized musculoskeletal radiologists. The outside reports were then graded based upon accuracy and completeness of the differential diagnosis. We compared the expert opinions with those of the outside radiologists. According to the expert panel, only 30 of the 56 (54{\%}) outside reports listed the most likely diagnosis as such and only 35 (63{\%}) listed it at all. A complete appropriate differential diagnosis was listed in only 22 (39{\%}) of the outside reports. Furthermore, 18 (32{\%}) of the outside reports listed diagnoses judged to be extremely unlikely by the experts. In a subset of 15 patients with images that the expert panel had judged diagnostic of specific entities, only nine of the outside reports listed the correct diagnosis as such and only 10 listed it at all. Furthermore, 11 (73{\%}) of the outside reports listed extremely unlikely possibilities for these diagnostic images. We found a substantial difference between the expert and the outside opinions.",
author = "Robert Heck and O'Malley, {Aran M.} and Kellum, {Ethan L.} and Donovan, {Timothy B.} and Andrew Ellzey and Witte, {Dexter A.}",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/BLO.0b013e3180485681",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "28--33",
journal = "Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research",
issn = "0009-921X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "459",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Errors in the MRI evaluation of musculoskeletal tumors and tumorlike lesions

AU - Heck, Robert

AU - O'Malley, Aran M.

AU - Kellum, Ethan L.

AU - Donovan, Timothy B.

AU - Ellzey, Andrew

AU - Witte, Dexter A.

PY - 2007/1/1

Y1 - 2007/1/1

N2 - Interpretation of an MRI of a suspected musculoskeletal neoplasm can be extremely difficult. Fifty-six MRIs originally evaluated by outside radiologists were independently evaluated by an expert panel consisting of three specialized musculoskeletal radiologists. The outside reports were then graded based upon accuracy and completeness of the differential diagnosis. We compared the expert opinions with those of the outside radiologists. According to the expert panel, only 30 of the 56 (54%) outside reports listed the most likely diagnosis as such and only 35 (63%) listed it at all. A complete appropriate differential diagnosis was listed in only 22 (39%) of the outside reports. Furthermore, 18 (32%) of the outside reports listed diagnoses judged to be extremely unlikely by the experts. In a subset of 15 patients with images that the expert panel had judged diagnostic of specific entities, only nine of the outside reports listed the correct diagnosis as such and only 10 listed it at all. Furthermore, 11 (73%) of the outside reports listed extremely unlikely possibilities for these diagnostic images. We found a substantial difference between the expert and the outside opinions.

AB - Interpretation of an MRI of a suspected musculoskeletal neoplasm can be extremely difficult. Fifty-six MRIs originally evaluated by outside radiologists were independently evaluated by an expert panel consisting of three specialized musculoskeletal radiologists. The outside reports were then graded based upon accuracy and completeness of the differential diagnosis. We compared the expert opinions with those of the outside radiologists. According to the expert panel, only 30 of the 56 (54%) outside reports listed the most likely diagnosis as such and only 35 (63%) listed it at all. A complete appropriate differential diagnosis was listed in only 22 (39%) of the outside reports. Furthermore, 18 (32%) of the outside reports listed diagnoses judged to be extremely unlikely by the experts. In a subset of 15 patients with images that the expert panel had judged diagnostic of specific entities, only nine of the outside reports listed the correct diagnosis as such and only 10 listed it at all. Furthermore, 11 (73%) of the outside reports listed extremely unlikely possibilities for these diagnostic images. We found a substantial difference between the expert and the outside opinions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34249939217&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34249939217&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BLO.0b013e3180485681

DO - 10.1097/BLO.0b013e3180485681

M3 - Article

SP - 28

EP - 33

JO - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

JF - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

SN - 0009-921X

IS - 459

ER -