AJR InPractice
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Oot, R.
Right arrow Articles by et, al.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Oot, R.
Right arrow Articles by et, al.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 151, Issue 3, 567-575
Copyright © 1988 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

The role of MR and CT in evaluating clival chordomas and chondrosarcomas

RF Oot, GE Melville, PF New, M Austin-Seymour, J Munzenrider, J Pile-Spellman, M Spagnoli, GM Shoukimas, KJ Momose, R Carroll, and al. et

Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston 02114.

Sixteen chordomas and nine chondrosarcomas of the clivus were evaluated with CT and MR either before (22 cases) or after (three cases) treatment with proton beam irradiation. The ability of these imaging techniques to provide information necessary to direct patient treatment was studied. The tumor was detected and its gross margins were identified by both techniques in all instances. No reliable diagnostic features allowing differentiation between these two tumors were encountered. MR generally was superior in defining the exact position of the brainstem and optic chiasm relative to the tumor, and it frequently provided superior information about tumor extension into the nasopharynx and cavernous sinus. CT was always better than MR in demonstrating tumoral calcification and in defining the exact anatomy of bone destruction. MR was generally superior to CT in demonstrating the position of the cavernous internal carotid artery relative to the tumor and often provided superior visualization of the vertebral and basilar arteries. In cases in which bone-induced artifact obscured the interface between the neural axis and tumor in the CT image, or in which the tumor had suprasellar extension and was likely to compress the optic chiasm and tracts, MR was of great value in planning irradiation therapy. The high occurrence of clinically asymptomatic signal intensity alterations in the MR studies of previously treated patients appears to limit the differential diagnostic value of this information. Given its greater availability and lower cost, CT appears to be the technique of choice for routine follow-up of previously treated patients.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
E. Erdem, E. C. Angtuaco, R. Van Hemert, J. S. Park, and O. Al-Mefty
Comprehensive Review of Intracranial Chordoma
RadioGraphics, July 1, 2003; 23(4): 995 - 1009.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.