Anatomical distribution, the incidence of malignancy and diagnostic workup in the pathological lesions of the clavicle: a review of 410 cases.

BACKGROUND

The clavicle poses a diagnostic dilemma of the pathological lesions due to the wide range of pathologies seen at this site. This study aimed to identify and stratify various pathologies seen in the clavicle and to guide ways of investigation for diagnosis based on age, site and investigation findings.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Four hundred and ten cases with clavicle lesions were identified in our database. Data were collected about the patient's medical history, previous investigation, inflammatory markers radiological investigations and biopsy. All patients were worked up and managed after discussion in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT).

RESULTS

Non-malignant lesions accounted for 79% of cases. Infection was the most common diagnosis (39%) and the commonest diagnosis in those less than 20 years of age. 73% of the lesions were found at the medial end of the clavicle. Malignant tumours were 21%, while primary benign bone tumours accounted for only 14%. 50% of the malignant lesions were due to metastatic disease. The risk of malignancy increases with advancing age. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were not sensitive as a diagnostic tool in cases of osteomyelitis confirmed by histology. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was noted to have high sensitivity and specificity for identifying the nature of a lesion and diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

We have identified age as a positive predictor of a malignant cause in pathological lesions of the clavicle. MRI should be considered in all these cases. CRP and ESR have poor predictive values in diagnosing infection in the clavicle. Patients presenting with clavicle lesions should be discussed in a specialist MDT and undergo a systemic diagnostic workup, still in some cases, diagnosis can be speculated based on the patient's age, location of the lesion within the clavicle and the features seen on the MRI scan.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.