ArticleCureus2026
Clinical and Radiological Concordance of Bone Tumours Using Histopathology as the Gold Standard: A Pilot Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBone tumours constitute a heterogeneous group of lesions with overlapping clinical and radiological features, making accurate preoperative diagnosis challenging. Correlating clinical findings and imaging with histopathology may improve diagnostic confidence and guide management. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiological profile of bone tumours and to determine the degree of clinico-radiological concordance with histopathology, which served as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis hospital-based pilot observational study included 34 patients with suspected bone tumours who underwent clinico-radiological evaluation followed by histopathological confirmation. Demographic and clinical details were obtained from case records. Radiological assessment was based on plain radiography and MRI, with additional CT and PET-CT as indicated. Lesions were assessed for age predilection, anatomical site, bone segment involved, pattern of destruction, margin, cortical breach, periosteal reaction, matrix mineralisation, and soft-tissue extension. A provisional clinico-radiological diagnosis was assigned in each case. Histopathological diagnosis served as the gold standard. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and diagnostic performance indices.
resultsThe mean age at presentation was 24.14 ± 13.17 years, with the highest incidence in the 10-19-year age group (44.1%). Males accounted for 73.5% of cases. Long bones were affected in 88.2% of cases, the most common being the femur (41.2%). Histopathology revealed malignant tumours in 73.5%, benign tumours in 20.6%, and non-neoplastic or inflammatory lesions in 5.9%. The most frequent final diagnosis was osteosarcoma (47.1%), followed by giant cell tumour (17.6%) and Ewing sarcoma (14.7%). Family-level clinico-radiological concordance was 47.1%, rising to 70.6% when the final diagnosis was included among radiological differentials. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy for detecting malignancy were 84.0%, 77.8%, and 82.4%, respectively.
conclusionClinico-radiological evaluation is valuable for preliminary diagnosis, biological stratification, and narrowing the differential diagnosis of bone tumours; however, histopathology remains indispensable for definitive diagnosis and accurate tumour classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.