[image: 1.jpg]
Morphologically this Looks like an enostosis, the spiculated margins blend
with the trabeculae, but according to the attached reference—which is
Fabulous—it implies that the HU is in the range of untreated osteoblastic
metastasis.
Do this need to be biopsied? Other?
[image: 2.jpg]
[image: image.png]
AJR:207, August 2016
[image: image.png]
Lauren Pringle informed me that there is a new, very current article
revisiting this in AJR.
I confess I’ve only read the abstract as yet…but it seems this newer
article included 162 malignant lesions, half of which were previously
treated.
The reference from 2016 was limited to untreated mets vs enostosis…..so
I’m not sure it’s apples to apples.
I think the <800HU of the lesion in my case is still too low for comfort,
despite the morphology.
Agree?
It would be so great if some of the authors of the 2016 and this current
article would share their thoughts on this.
Please.
Hilary
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:42 AM hilary umans <hilary.umans@gmail.com>
wrote:
[gallery]
I received many comments about this.
Based mostly on comments from those of you who are primarily engaged in
tumor imaging, I was reassured that this is simply what it looks like, so I
reported it as an incidental benign bone island (I did not recommend follow
up surveillance imaging).
I had been relying heavily on that AJR article from 2016….but I suppose
the results were a bit too good to be true.
What I learned from this is, “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a
duck” don’t go measuring Hounsfield units….it will only confuse matters.
****By the way, Dr. Helito gave an excellent lecture yesterday on the
Anterolateral Compartment of the Knee, focused on ALL reconstruction. The
video is available on demand on the website ocadmsk.com
Hilary
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:42 AM hilary umans <hilary.umans@gmail.com>
wrote:
[gallery]