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


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 Kransdorf, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Moser, R. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kransdorf, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Moser, R. P., Jr

Radiology, Vol 184, 233-237, Copyright © 1992 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Giant cell tumor in skeletally immature patients

MJ Kransdorf, DE Sweet, PC Buetow, MA Giudici and RP Moser Jr
Department of Radiologic Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC 20306-6000.

The radiographs and clinical and surgical histories of 50 skeletally immature patients with histologically verified giant cell tumor (GCT) of the long and short tubular bones were retrospectively studied to determine the prevalence, location within bone (eg, epiphysis, metaphysis), skeletal distribution, radiographic appearance, and pathogenesis of GCTs. Skeletal immaturity was determined radiographically by the presence of open epiphyses. Patients were selected from a group of 876 patients who were seen in consultation with documented GCT of the tubular bones. Approximately 5.7% of all GCTs occurred in the skeletally immature (this rate must be viewed with caution due to the selection bias inherent in any referral population). The lesions almost invariably involved the metaphysis. The tibia was the most commonly affected site, representing approximately 26% of cases. All were geographic lytic lesions, with margins ranging from sclerotic to ill defined. An expanded (widened), remodeled bone contour was frequently encountered. Approximately 56% of lesions were solid or solid with cystic change; the remaining 44% were predominantly cystic.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
A GANDHE, A SANKHE, G AERON, and A JOSHI
Epiphyseal giant cell tumour in an immature skeleton
Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2008; 81(963): e75 - e78.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
B. Hoch, C. Inwards, M. Sundaram, and A. E. Rosenberg
Multicentric Giant Cell Tumor of Bone. Clinicopathologic Analysis of Thirty Cases
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., September 1, 2006; 88(9): 1998 - 2008.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
M. D. Murphey, G. C. Nomikos, D. J. Flemming, F. H. Gannon, H. T. Temple, and M. J. Kransdorf
Imaging of Giant Cell Tumor and Giant Cell Reparative Granuloma of Bone: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation
RadioGraphics, September 1, 2001; 21(5): 1283 - 1309.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 INT J SURG PATHOLHome page
T. Yamaguchi and H. D. Dorfman
Giant Cell Reparative Granuloma: A Comparative Clinicopathologic Study of Lesions in Gnathic and Extragnathic Sites
International Journal of Surgical Pathology, July 1, 2001; 9(3): 189 - 200.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1992 by the Radiological Society of North America.