The objective of the present essay was to encourage a careful evaluation of periosteal reactions on magnetic resonance images. The initial approach to bone lesions is made by conventional radiography and, based on the imaging findings, periosteal reactions are classified into classical subtypes. Although magnetic resonance imaging is considered as the gold standard for local staging of bone tumors, the utilization of such method in the study of periosteal reactions related to focal bone lesions has been poorly emphasized, with relatively few studies approaching this subject. The literature review revealed a study describing an experimental animal model of osteomyelitis suggesting that magnetic resonance imaging is superior to other imaging methods in the early identification of periosteal reactions. Another study has suggested a good correlation between conventional radiography and magnetic resonance imaging in the identification and classification of periosteal reactions in cases of osteosarcoma. The present essay illustrates cases of periosteal reactions observed at magnetic resonance imaging in correlation with findings of conventional radiography or other imaging methods.

Keywords: Periostitis; Bone neoplasm; Magnetic resonance imaging.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting periosteal reactions and to compare MRI and conventional radiography (CR) in terms of the classification of periosteal reactions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of 42 consecutive patients (mean age, 22 years; 20 men) with a confirmed diagnosis of osteosarcoma or Ewing's sarcoma, MRI and CR images having been acquired pretreatment. Three blinded radiologists detected periosteal reactions and evaluated each periosteal reaction subtype in CR and MRI images: Codman's triangle; laminated; and spiculated. The CR was used as a benchmark to calculate the diagnostic performance. We used the kappa coefficient to assess interobserver reproducibility. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test was used in order to assess contingency between CR and MRI classifications. RESULTS: In the detection of periosteal reactions, MRI showed high specificity, a high negative predictive value, and low-to-moderate sensitivity. For CR and for MRI, the interobserver agreement for periosteal reaction was almost perfect, whereas, for the classification of different subtypes of periosteal reaction, it was higher for the Codman's triangle subtype and lower for the spiculated subtype. There was no significant difference between MRI and CR in terms of the classifications (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We found no difference between MRI and CR in terms of their ability to classify periosteal reactions. MRI showed high specificity and almost perfect interobserver agreement for the detection of periosteal reactions. The interobserver agreement was variable for the different subtypes of periosteal reaction.

Keywords: Periosteum; Osteosarcoma; Sarcoma, Ewing; Magnetic resonance imaging; Radiography; Reproducibility of results.