Osteofibrous Dysplasia

Back

Background

Osteofibrous dysplasia is a rare, nonneoplastic condition of unknown etiology that affects the long bones. It frequently is asymptomatic.[1]

Frangenheim first described the lesion in 1921 and reported it as a congenital osteitis fibrosa.[2] Subsequently, Kempson reported two cases affecting the tibia of young children and named the lesion ossifying fibroma.[3]

In 1981, Campanacci and Laus studied 35 cases and coined the term osteofibrous dysplasia of the tibia and fibula.[4] They proposed this term as a replacement for ossifying fibroma because of the supposed congenital origin of the condition, the histologic resemblance to fibrous dysplasia, and the apparent exclusive involvement of the tibia and fibula.[5] Osteofibrous dysplasia is occasionally referred to as Campanacci syndrome.

Most lesions of osteofibrous dysplasia affect the cortex of the tibia, predominantly the middle third of the diaphysis. The cortex often is expanded and thinned, with multiple radiolucencies mixed with intervening areas of sclerosis. The second most common site of involvement is the fibula.

Numerous cases of osteofibrous dysplasia affecting the tibia have been reported. Sweet et al reported 30 cases, with ipsilateral fibular involvement in five cases (17%).[6] In another study of 10 children with tibial lesions, one case (10%) showed ipsilateral fibular involvement. The tibia was affected in each of the 35 cases reported by Campanacci and Laus; ipsilateral involvement of the fibula was noted in four cases (11%), and 22 lesions (63%) affected the middle third of the tibial diaphysis.[4] Ishida et al found 11 of 12 lesions (92%) in the tibia, with one lesion in the ulna.[7] Most of these tibial lesions affected the proximal diaphysis.

Bilateral involvement is rare. However, in a study of five children by Ozaki et al, one child presented with bilateral lesions of both ulnae and tibiae.[8] The tibia was affected in the remaining four children, with one having ipsilateral fibular involvement.

Wang et al reported one case of a lesion affecting the radius, and Schlitter reported the case of a lesion in the humerus.[9, 10]

Osteofibrous dysplasia of the mandible, which occurs exclusively in adults, commonly is referred to as ossifying fibroma.

Anatomy

The tibia is a tubular long bone with a triangular shape in cross-section. The bone is surrounded by four fascial compartments. The anteromedial surface lies subcutaneously and therefore has no soft-tissue protection. The primary center of ossification appears at 7 weeks' gestation. The proximal ossific nucleus appears soon after birth and fuses with the metaphysis at approximately age 16 years. The distal ossific nucleus appears at age 2 years and fuses at age 15 years. In some, separate centers of ossification exist for the medial malleolus and tibial tubercle.

The vascular supply to the tibia is provided predominantly by the posterior tibial artery, from which the nutrient artery enters the tibia at the origin of the soleus muscle along the oblique line of the tibia. The nutrient artery of the tibia has three ascending branches and one descending branch. The distal aspect of the tibia is supplied by periosteal anastomoses that enter the bone adjacent to the ankle joint.

Etiology

The etiology of osteofibrous dysplasia, as well as the cell of origin, remains to be established. Descriptions of familial osteofibrous dysplasia are rare.[11, 12]

Osteofibrous dysplasia has been postulated to arise from a fibrovascular abnormality. Johnson proposed a relationship between osteofibrous dysplasia and adamantinoma on the basis of a common causative factor—namely, a fibrovascular defect.[13] According to this theory, osteofibrous dysplasia results from an abnormality in the haversian canals, whereas adamantinoma develops secondary to a defect of intramedullary vasculature.

Komiya and Inoue reported similar findings and suggested a deficiency in blood flow within the periosteum as the etiologic factor in osteofibrous dysplasia.[14] Bridge et al investigated the cytogenetics of osteofibrous dysplasia.[15] They reported trisomy 12 in two distinct specimens from a lesion in an 11-year-old boy and trisomy 7, 8, and 22 in another boy. Studies of adamantinoma have revealed trisomy 7 and 12, suggesting a relation between osteofibrous dysplasia and adamantinoma (see Presentation).

Sherman et al reported the coexistence of adamantinoma and osteofibrous dysplasia in the same patient, providing additional evidence of a relation between these two entities.[16] Several other abnormalities have been found within adamantinoma lesions; consequently, these chromosomal anomalies may not be pathogenetic.[17, 18] On the other hand, Sakamoto et al have shown mutations at the Arg 201 codon in persons with fibrous dysplasia but not in persons with osteofibrous dysplasia, findings that suggest a different pathogenesis for each lesion.[19]

Gray et al identified germline mutations preventing regulated exon skipping in MET.[20] They determined that aberrant regulation via the juxtamembrane domain subverted core MET receptor functions that regulate osteogenesis within cortical diaphyseal bone and led to osteofibrous dysplasia.

Epidemiology

Osteofibrous dysplasia usually is diagnosed in children younger than 10 years, with a peak incidence in children aged 1-5 years. Several occurrences in newborns have also been reported.[21, 22, 23, 24] Adults diagnosed with de-novo osteofibrous dysplasia have been reported, the oldest patient being age 39 years at diagnosis.[6]

The reported mean age at diagnosis has been variable. Sweet et al and Ishida et al reported an average age over 10 years.[6, 7] In contrast, Komiya and Inoue, Ozaki et al, and Campanacci and Laus reported an average age younger than 10 years.[4, 8, 14]

No significant sex preponderance has been reported consistently, though several studies have found a slight male predilection. Sweet et al reported 16 males in their 30 patients.[6] Campanacci and Laus noted that 21 of the 35 patients (60%) in their series were male.[4] ; this represents the largest reported sex preponderance. In contrast, Park et al reported 38 males and 42 females in their series of 80 patients.[25]

Prognosis

The natural history of osteofibrous dysplasia is unpredictable.[26] The growth rate can range from slow to rapid, and spontaneous resolution is possible. Campanacci and Laus reported three common clinical courses, as follows:

Most commonly, there is continued growth of the lesion until skeletal maturity is reached, with the most rapid period of growth occurring before age 10 years. In most cases, moderate progression is followed by gradual improvement once skeletal maturity is attained.

History and Physical Examination

Classically, osteofibrous dysplasia has been described as painless, with a localized, firm swelling of the tibia as the presenting complaint. The tibia frequently is bowed anteriorly or anterolaterally.[27]

Park et al reported that of 80 patients, 25% complained of pain, 12.5% had a pathologic fracture, 8.8% presented with tibial swelling, and 6.2% presented with deformity.[25] Sweet et al reported that 18 of 30 patients (60%) presented with complaints of pain, 13 (43%) with swelling, and four (13%) with deformity.[6] One lesion was an incidental finding.

Komiya and Inoue reported similar presenting complaints in a series of 10 cases.[14] Ishida et al reported a duration of symptoms in 11 of 12 patients ranging from 2 months to 5 years, with an average of 14 months; one lesion was asymptomatic.[7] Of three newborns with osteofibrous dysplasia of the tibia, two had swelling and one had pathologic fracture.

Osteofibrous dysplasia vs adamantinoma

Osteofibrous dysplasia and adamantinoma have similar clinical presentations, as well as similar radiologic and pathologic findings. Although adamantinoma can sometimes have the appearance of a low-grade osteogenic sarcoma, osteofibrous dysplasia does not exhibit histologic characteristics of malignancy.

There may be histologic gradations between osteofibrous dysplasia, benign adamantinoma, and the malignant appearance of more aggressive adamantinoma, which usually is encountered in adults. In the latter, osteoid production with cellular mitoses may give the appearance of an osteogenic sarcoma and, indeed, may progress to frank malignancy.

Because the clinical course and radiologic appearance of osteofibrous dysplasia are diagnostic in children, biopsy seldom is indicated and should be avoided, if possible. In patients presenting at skeletal maturity, in whom the incidence of adamantinoma is higher, biopsy of the midportion of the lesion may be necessary for diagnosis. Complete resection of the entire lesion of osteofibrous dysplasia is neither recommended nor necessary.

Several authors have investigated the possible relation between adamantinoma and osteofibrous dysplasia.[28, 29] Dockerty and Meyerding first reported a relation between benign fibro-osseous lesions and adamantinoma.[30] Markel was the first to investigate this relation thoroughly.[31] Subsequently, three cases of tibial adamantinoma that mimicked osteofibrous dysplasia were reported, two of which occurred in children younger than 10 years.[32]

Several investigators have proposed that osteofibrous dysplasia represents a benign form of adamantinoma or results from a resolved adamantinoma.[33] Czerniak et al described an intracortical lesion with pathologic findings similar to those of osteofibrous dysplasia, which they termed differentiated adamantinoma.[34] Further, they described differentiated adamantinoma as affecting individuals younger than those with classic adamantinoma. Czerniak et al and Springfield et al reported that differentiated or osteofibrous dysplasia–like adamantinoma can progress to adamantinoma.[34, 35] Thus, these lesions may represent intermediates in a continuum from osteofibrous dysplasia to adamantinoma.[36, 37]

Hazelbag et al reported several findings that support the connection between the two conditions, as follows[38] :

Findings supporting a relation between the two conditions are in conflict with an investigation by Park et al, who reported no progression from osteofibrous dysplasia to adamantinoma and contended that osteofibrous dysplasia is distinct from adamantinoma.[25]  They did, however, suggest that osteofibrous dysplasia might be related to fibrous dysplasia, on the grounds that two cases in their series transformed from osteofibrous dysplasia to monostotic fibrous dysplasia. Subsequent studies have reached similar conclusions.[39]

Several reports on the pathology of adamantinoma have shown that the lesion may have areas resembling osteofibrous dysplasia in appearance.[40] This finding suggests the potential for misdiagnosis in cases of inadequate biopsy; such misdiagnosis may explain the reports of progression of osteofibrous dysplasia to adamantinoma.

Thus, Springfield et al suggested that histologic diagnosis of osteofibrous dysplasia should be regarded with caution.[35] Hazelbag et al advocated biopsy of the center of the lesion to avoid such an error, whereas Sweet et al suggested examination of the entire specimen to identify areas consistent with adamantinoma.[6, 38]

Imaging Studies

Radiography

In children, osteofibrous dysplasia initially engenders tremendous concern among clinicians and parents regarding the possibility of malignancy. However, the appearance usually is typical, and radiologic diagnosis generally proves sufficient.

The characteristic radiographic appearance of osteofibrous dysplasia (see the images below) has been well reported. Lesions are eccentric, intracortical, and osteolytic. Variable expansion of the external cortical surface is present, with sclerosis of the internal cortical surface. Frequently, a multilocular lesion gives rise to a bubbled appearance. Soft-tissue extension is absent, and periosteal reaction is rare, unless there is an associated pathologic fracture. The size of the lesion is variable. Usually, it affects the diaphysis, though metaphyseal encroachment has been reported.



View Image

Characteristic radiographic findings of osteofibrous dysplasia. Note eccentric intracortical lesion with sclerosis of internal surface, bubbled appear....



View Image

Radiograph of osteofibrous dysplasia of tibia in 5-year-old girl.

CT and MRI

To date,the  diagnostic characteristics of osteofibrous dysplasia on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have not been well established.[54] However, Jung et al reviewed MRI scans of 24 pathologically proven cases and concluded that osteofibrous dysplasia showed a range of features from limited to aggressive lesions.[55]

Biopsy

Because the clinical course and the radiologic appearance of osteofibrous dysplasia are diagnostic in children, biopsy is seldom indicated and should be avoided if possible. In patients presenting at skeletal maturity, in whom the incidence of adamantinoma is higher, biopsy of the midportion of the lesion may be necessary for diagnosis. If a biopsy is performed, histologic examination is generally definitive.

If biopsy is necessary to confirm the diagnosis, consult with a radiologist and a pathologist to ensure an adequate specimen. Adhere to strict biopsy principles; a malignant process has not yet been excluded.

Biopsy the tibia away from the apex of the tibial curvature to minimize the development of a fatigue fracture, which is common after biopsy in osteofibrous dysplasia. Incise the skin longitudinally and minimize dissection to the greatest extent possible. Disrupt as few compartments as possible; dissect through, rather than adjacent to, muscle; fill bone defects; and strictly maintain hemostasis.

Biopsy material should include periosteum, cortical bone, and medullary material, both central and peripheral to the lesion. Tissue obtained must be representative of the lesion and adequate for histologic grading. Obtain a frozen section to ensure the specimen is sufficient. Avoid leaving sharp edges that may act as stress risers, leading to postbiopsy fracture.

After biopsy, protect the limb in a cast or splint for 3-6 weeks.

Histologic Findings

Despite the characteristic radiographic appearance, Wang et al recommended that diagnosis should be based on biopsy and pathologic examination.[9] At the time of surgery, inspection reveals an intact periosteum. The cortex is thinned and may be perforated. The lesion itself is composed of soft, granular tissue that is whitish-yellow in color.

The histologic characteristics of osteofibrous dysplasia are well described. The overall appearance is that of zonal architecture (see the first image below). The lesion is fibrous at its center, with immature woven bone trabeculae. Vascular channels have been described within the lesion (see the second image below). At the periphery, a prominent border of active osteoblasts rims the bony trabeculae. The presence of such a border helps differentiate osteofibrous dysplasia from fibrous dysplasia, in which there is no border of active osteoblasts (see the third image below).



View Image

Typical histologic appearance of osteofibrous dysplasia lesion (×100). Note zonal architecture with periphery of active osteoblasts surrounding bone t....



View Image

Histologic section (×100) demonstrating vascular channels within osteofibrous dysplasia lesion, which has been proposed as etiologic factor in develop....



View Image

Histologic appearance of fibrous dysplasia, revealing appearance similar to osteofibrous dysplasia but lacking periphery of active osteoblasts.

As examination proceeds from the center of the lesion to the periphery, the bone trabeculae become larger and more lamellar in appearance. Fibroblasts in the lesion have been noted to be well differentiated. Several studies have reported cytokeratin-positive elements on immunohistochemical staining. Occasional hemorrhagic zones, cysts, or foci of cartilaginous differentiation have been reported. Multinucleated giant cells have also been observed.

Medical Therapy

Nonoperative treatment usually is recommended until skeletal maturity is reached.[56] Recurrent pathologic fractures may be an ongoing problem in some active children. Using a tibial brace similar to those used for congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia may minimize recurrent pathologic fractures. A lace-up leather support from just below the knee to the ankle may be used. Fractures usually are nondisplaced and can be treated in a walking patellar tendon-bearing cast. Cast immobilization is sufficient for fracture healing, though healing is slower than normal.

Surgical Therapy

There are no absolute contraindications for surgical intervention in children, with the exception of any underlying medical or anesthetic issues. Operative management is not recommended in patients who are skeletally immature, because of the high recurrence rate after resection and curettage[57] and because of the predisposition to fracturing after the bone has been weakened by biopsy.

Once skeletal maturity has been reached, marginal resection and bone grafting may be performed without increased risk of recurrence.[58, 59] Pathologic fracture does not necessarily require surgical management, because cast immobilization frequently results in good healing.

For patients of any age, surgical correction of associated deformities may be required. Campanacci and Laus recommended wide resection with extensive bone grafting in children who are skeletally immature if the lesion is aggressive, with marked expansion and bone destruction or multiple pathologic fractures.[4, 60] Intramedullary prophylactic rodding of the tibia may also be an option in children who frequently present with fractures; this approach is similar to that used in osteogenesis imperfecta. Resection of large portions of the lesion usually is not necessary and only increases susceptibility to recurrent fractures.

Complications

The recurrence rate after resection and curettage has been reported to be 64-100%.[61] Goergen et al reported multiple recurrences in a 3-year-old boy and a 6-month-old boy after attempts at resection.[62] Wang et al also reported multiple recurrences after surgical intervention.[9] Campanacci and Laus indicated that recurrence does not develop in patients older than 10 years.[4]

Malignant transformation of the lesion is very rare. Ben Arush et al described the course of a boy diagnosed at age 4 years with osteofibrous dysplasia of the tibia who subsequently presented at age 14 years with synovial sarcoma of the peroneal muscles of the same leg.[63] At the time of the latter diagnosis, computed tomography (CT) confirmed multiple pulmonary metastases.

Malignant transformation to soft-tissue sarcoma has been reported in fibrous dysplasia, most commonly in the polyostotic variation.[64, 65, 66] However, the case reported by Ben Arush et al is the only report of sarcomatous degeneration of osteofibrous dysplasia.

Author

Darin Davidson, MD, Resident Physician, Department of Orthopedics, University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine, Canada

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editors

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD, Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Chief Editor

Omohodion (Odion) Binitie, MD, Medical Director, Assistant Member, Department of Sarcoma, Section Head, Orthopedics, Adolescent/Young Adult and Pediatric Orthopedic Oncology, Medical Director, Physical Therapy, Speech Therapy, and Rehabilitation Services, Assistant Fellowship Program Director, Musculoskeletal Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center; Assistant Professor, Department of Oncologic Sciences, Department of Ortho and Sports Medicine, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

Robert Mervyn Letts, MD, FRCS(C), FACS Former Chief, Department of Surgery, Division of Pediatric Orthopedics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa; Consultant Pediatric Orthopedic Surgeon, Sheikh Khalifa Medical City, UAE

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References

  1. McCaffrey M, Letts M, Carpenter B, Kabir A, Davidson D, Seip J. Osteofibrous dysplasia: a review of the literature and presentation of an additional 3 cases. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2003 Oct. 32 (10):479-86. [View Abstract]
  2. Frangenheim P. Angeborene Ostitis Fibrosa als Ursache einer Intrauterinen Unterschenkelfraktur. Arch Klin Chir. 1921. 117:22-9.
  3. Kempson RL. Ossifying fibroma of the long bones. A light and electron microscopic study. Arch Pathol. 1966 Sep. 82 (3):218-33. [View Abstract]
  4. Campanacci M, Laus M. Osteofibrous dysplasia of the tibia and fibula. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981 Mar. 63 (3):367-75. [View Abstract]
  5. Campanacci M. Osteofibrous dysplasia of long bones a new clinical entity. Ital J Orthop Traumatol. 1976 Aug. 2 (2):221-37. [View Abstract]
  6. Sweet DE, Vinh TN, Devaney K. Cortical osteofibrous dysplasia of long bone and its relationship to adamantinoma. A clinicopathologic study of 30 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992 Mar. 16 (3):282-90. [View Abstract]
  7. Ishida T, Iijima T, Kikuchi F, Kitagawa T, Tanida T, Imamura T, et al. A clinicopathological and immunohistochemical study of osteofibrous dysplasia, differentiated adamantinoma, and adamantinoma of long bones. Skeletal Radiol. 1992. 21 (8):493-502. [View Abstract]
  8. Ozaki T, Hamada M, Sugihara S, Kunisada T, Mitani S, Inoue H. Treatment outcome of osteofibrous dysplasia. J Pediatr Orthop B. 1998 Jul. 7 (3):199-202. [View Abstract]
  9. Wang JW, Shih CH, Chen WJ. Osteofibrous dysplasia (ossifying fibroma of long bones). A report of four cases and review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992 May. (278):235-43. [View Abstract]
  10. SCHLITTER HE. [2 Benign bone tumors with unusual localization & spontaneous fracture]. Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed. 1958 Feb. 88 (2):195-200. [View Abstract]
  11. Hunter AG, Jarvis J. Osteofibrous dysplasia: two affected male sibs and an unrelated girl with bilateral involvement. Am J Med Genet. 2002 Sep 15. 112 (1):79-85. [View Abstract]
  12. Karol LA, Brown DS, Wise CA, Waldron M. Familial osteofibrous dysplasia. A case series. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Oct. 87 (10):2297-307. [View Abstract]
  13. Johnson LC. Congenital pseudarthrosis, adamantinoma of long bone and intracortical fibrous dysplasia of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg. 1972. 54-A:1355.
  14. Komiya S, Inoue A. Aggressive bone tumorous lesion in infancy: osteofibrous dysplasia of the tibia and fibula. J Pediatr Orthop. 1993 Sep-Oct. 13 (5):577-81. [View Abstract]
  15. Bridge JA, Dembinski A, DeBoer J, Travis J, Neff JR. Clonal chromosomal abnormalities in osteofibrous dysplasia. Implications for histopathogenesis and its relationship with adamantinoma. Cancer. 1994 Mar 15. 73 (6):1746-52. [View Abstract]
  16. Sherman GM, Damron TA, Yang Y. CD99 positive adamantinoma of the ulna with ipsilateral discrete osteofibrous dysplasia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Mar. (408):256-61. [View Abstract]
  17. Mandahl N, Heim S, Rydholm A, Willén H, Mitelman F. Structural chromosome aberrations in an adamantinoma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1989 Oct 15. 42 (2):187-90. [View Abstract]
  18. Sozzi G, Miozzo M, Di Palma S, Minelli A, Calderone C, Danesino C, et al. Involvement of the region 13q14 in a patient with adamantinoma of the long bones. Hum Genet. 1990 Oct. 85 (5):513-5. [View Abstract]
  19. Sakamoto A, Oda Y, Iwamoto Y, Tsuneyoshi M. A comparative study of fibrous dysplasia and osteofibrous dysplasia with regard to Gsalpha mutation at the Arg201 codon: polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of paraffin-embedded tissues. J Mol Diagn. 2000 May. 2 (2):67-72. [View Abstract]
  20. Gray MJ, Kannu P, Sharma S, et al. Mutations Preventing Regulated Exon Skipping in MET Cause Osteofibrous Dysplasia. Am J Hum Genet. 2015 Dec 3. 97 (6):837-47. [View Abstract]
  21. Anderson MJ, Townsend DR, Johnston JO, Bohay DR. Osteofibrous dysplasia in the newborn. Report of a case. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Feb. 75 (2):265-7. [View Abstract]
  22. Hindman BW, Bell S, Russo T, Zuppan CW. Neonatal osteofibrous dysplasia: report of two cases. Pediatr Radiol. 1996. 26 (4):303-6. [View Abstract]
  23. Zamzam MM. Congenital osteofibrous dysplasia of the tibia, associated with pseudoarthrosis of the ipsilateral fibula. Saudi Med J. 2008 Oct. 29 (10):1507-9. [View Abstract]
  24. Çetinkaya M, Özkan H, Köksal N, Sarısözen B, Yazıcı Z. Neonatal osteofibrous dysplasia associated with pathological tibia fracture: a case report and review of the literature. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2012 Mar. 21 (2):183-6. [View Abstract]
  25. Park YK, Unni KK, McLeod RA, Pritchard DJ. Osteofibrous dysplasia: clinicopathologic study of 80 cases. Hum Pathol. 1993 Dec. 24 (12):1339-47. [View Abstract]
  26. Van Delm I, Fabry G. Osteofibrous dysplasia of the tibia: case report and review of the literature. J Pediatr Orthop B. 1999 Jan. 8 (1):50-3. [View Abstract]
  27. Campbell CJ, Hawk T. A variant of fibrous dysplasia (osteofibrous dysplasia). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982 Feb. 64 (2):231-6. [View Abstract]
  28. Kahn LB. Adamantinoma, osteofibrous dysplasia and differentiated adamantinoma. Skeletal Radiol. 2003 May. 32 (5):245-58. [View Abstract]
  29. Maki M, Athanasou N. Osteofibrous dysplasia and adamantinoma: correlation of proto-oncogene product and matrix protein expression. Hum Pathol. 2004 Jan. 35 (1):69-74. [View Abstract]
  30. Dockerty MB, Meyerding HW. Adamantinoma of the tibia. JAMA. 1942. 119:932-37.
  31. Markel SF. Ossifying fibroma of long bone: its distinction from fibrous dysplasia and its association with adamantinoma of long bone. Am J Clin Pathol. 1978 Jan. 69 (1):91-7. [View Abstract]
  32. Schajowicz F, Santini-Araujo E. Adamantinoma of the tibia masked by fibrous dysplasia. Report of three cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Jan. (238):294-301. [View Abstract]
  33. Ueda Y, Blasius S, Edel G, Wuisman P, Böcker W, Roessner A. Osteofibrous dysplasia of long bones--a reactive process to adamantinomatous tissue. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1992. 118 (2):152-6. [View Abstract]
  34. Czerniak B, Rojas-Corona RR, Dorfman HD. Morphologic diversity of long bone adamantinoma. The concept of differentiated (regressing) adamantinoma and its relationship to osteofibrous dysplasia. Cancer. 1989 Dec 1. 64 (11):2319-34. [View Abstract]
  35. Springfield DS, Rosenberg AE, Mankin HJ, Mindell ER. Relationship between osteofibrous dysplasia and adamantinoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Dec. (309):234-44. [View Abstract]
  36. Gleason BC, Liegl-Atzwanger B, Kozakewich HP, Connolly S, Gebhardt MC, Fletcher JA, et al. Osteofibrous dysplasia and adamantinoma in children and adolescents: a clinicopathologic reappraisal. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008 Mar. 32 (3):363-76. [View Abstract]
  37. Mathew M, Joseph B. Differentiated adamantinoma: a case report and review of literature. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2007 Jul. 50 (3):565-7. [View Abstract]
  38. Hazelbag HM, Taminiau AH, Fleuren GJ, Hogendoorn PC. Adamantinoma of the long bones. A clinicopathological study of thirty-two patients with emphasis on histological subtype, precursor lesion, and biological behavior. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994 Oct. 76 (10):1482-99. [View Abstract]
  39. Scholfield DW, Sadozai Z, Ghali C, Sumathi V, Douis H, Gaston L, et al. Does osteofibrous dysplasia progress to adamantinoma and how should they be treated?. Bone Joint J. 2017 Mar. 99-B (3):409-416. [View Abstract]
  40. Hatori M, Watanabe M, Hosaka M, Sasano H, Narita M, Kokubun S. A classic adamantinoma arising from osteofibrous dysplasia-like adamantinoma in the lower leg: a case report and review of the literature. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2006 May. 209 (1):53-9. [View Abstract]
  41. Bethapudi S, Ritchie DA, Macduff E, Straiton J. Imaging in osteofibrous dysplasia, osteofibrous dysplasia-like adamantinoma, and classic adamantinoma. Clin Radiol. 2014 Feb. 69 (2):200-8. [View Abstract]
  42. Grabias SL, Campbell CJ. Fibrous dysplasia. Orthop Clin North Am. 1977 Oct. 8 (4):771-83. [View Abstract]
  43. Nakashima Y, Yamamuro T, Fujiwara Y, Kotoura Y, Mori E, Hamashima Y. Osteofibrous dysplasia (ossifying fibroma of long bones). A study of 12 cases. Cancer. 1983 Sep 1. 52 (5):909-14. [View Abstract]
  44. Sakamoto A, Oda Y, Iwamoto Y, Tsuneyoshi M. A comparative study of fibrous dysplasia and osteofibrous dysplasia with regard to expressions of c-fos and c-jun products and bone matrix proteins: a clinicopathologic review and immunohistochemical study of c-fos, c-jun, type I collagen, osteonectin, osteopontin, and osteocalcin. Hum Pathol. 1999 Dec. 30 (12):1418-26. [View Abstract]
  45. Most MJ, Sim FH, Inwards CY. Osteofibrous dysplasia and adamantinoma. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010 Jun. 18 (6):358-66. [View Abstract]
  46. Adler CP. Case report 587: Adamantinoma of the tibia mimicking osteofibrous dysplasia. Skeletal Radiol. 1990. 19 (1):55-8. [View Abstract]
  47. Weiss SW, Dorfman HD. Adamantinoma of long bone. An analysis of nine new cases with emphasis on metastasizing lesions and fibrous dysplasia-like changes. Hum Pathol. 1977 Mar. 8 (2):141-53. [View Abstract]
  48. Taylor RM, Kashima TG, Ferguson DJ, Szuhai K, Hogendoorn PC, Athanasou NA. Analysis of stromal cells in osteofibrous dysplasia and adamantinoma of long bones. Mod Pathol. 2012 Jan. 25 (1):56-64. [View Abstract]
  49. Kuruvilla G, Steiner GC. Osteofibrous dysplasia-like adamantinoma of bone: a report of five cases with immunohistochemical and ultrastructural studies. Hum Pathol. 1998 Aug. 29 (8):809-14. [View Abstract]
  50. Kanamori M, Antonescu CR, Scott M, Bridge RS Jr, Neff JR, Spanier SS, et al. Extra copies of chromosomes 7, 8, 12, 19, and 21 are recurrent in adamantinoma. J Mol Diagn. 2001 Feb. 3 (1):16-21. [View Abstract]
  51. Most MJ, Sim FH, Inwards CY. Osteofibrous dysplasia and adamantinoma. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010 Jun. 18 (6):358-66. [View Abstract]
  52. Ratra A, Wooldridge A, Brindley G. Osteofibrous Dysplasia-like Adamantinoma of the Tibia in a 15-Year-Old Girl. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015 Oct. 44 (10):E411-3. [View Abstract]
  53. Buldu H, Centel T, Kırımlıoğlu H, Dirik Y. Osteofibrous dysplasia-like adamantinoma in a 3-month-old male infant: a case report. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2015. 49 (2):210-2. [View Abstract]
  54. Wootton-Gorges SL. MR imaging of primary bone tumors and tumor-like conditions in children. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2009 Aug. 17 (3):469-87, vi. [View Abstract]
  55. Jung JY, Jee WH, Hong SH, Kang HS, Chung HW, Ryu KN, et al. MR findings of the osteofibrous dysplasia. Korean J Radiol. 2014 Jan-Feb. 15 (1):114-22. [View Abstract]
  56. Westacott D, Kannu P, Stimec J, Hopyan S, Howard A. Osteofibrous Dysplasia of the Tibia in Children: Outcome Without Resection. J Pediatr Orthop. 2017 Dec 8. [View Abstract]
  57. Moretti VM, Slotcavage RL, Crawford EA, Lackman RD, Ogilvie CM. Curettage and graft alleviates athletic-limiting pain in benign lytic bone lesions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Jan. 469 (1):283-8. [View Abstract]
  58. Lee RS, Weitzel S, Eastwood DM, Monsell F, Pringle J, Cannon SR, et al. Osteofibrous dysplasia of the tibia. Is there a need for a radical surgical approach?. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 May. 88 (5):658-64. [View Abstract]
  59. Hahn SB, Kim SH, Cho NH, Choi CJ, Kim BS, Kang HJ. Treatment of osteofibrous dysplasia and associated lesions. Yonsei Med J. 2007 Jun 30. 48 (3):502-10. [View Abstract]
  60. Mankin HJ, Trahan CA, Fondren G, Mankin CJ. Non-ossifying fibroma, fibrous cortical defect and Jaffe-Campanacci syndrome: a biologic and clinical review. Chir Organi Mov. 2009 May. 93 (1):1-7. [View Abstract]
  61. Puchner SE, Varga R, Hobusch GM, Kasparek M, Panotopoulos J, Lang S, et al. Long-term outcome following treatment of Adamantinoma and Osteofibrous dysplasia of long bones. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016 Nov. 102 (7):925-932. [View Abstract]
  62. Goergen TG, Dickman PS, Resnick D, Saltzstein SL, O'Dell CW, Akeson WH. Long bone ossifying fibromas. Cancer. 1977 May. 39 (5):2067-72. [View Abstract]
  63. Ben Arush MW, Ben Arieh Y, Bialik V, Goldsher D, Meller I, Berant M. Synovial sarcoma associated with osteofibrous dysplasia. A case report and review of the literature. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1992 Aug. 14 (3):261-4. [View Abstract]
  64. Huvos AG, Higinbotham NL, Miller TR. Bone sarcomas arising in fibrous dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972 Jul. 54 (5):1047-56. [View Abstract]
  65. SCHWARTZ DT, ALPERT M. THE MALIGNANT TRANSFORMATION OF FIBROUS DYSPLASIA. Am J Med Sci. 1964 Jan. 247:1-20. [View Abstract]
  66. Witkin GB, Guilford WB, Siegal GP. Osteogenic sarcoma and soft tissue myxoma in a patient with fibrous dysplasia and hemoglobins JBaltimore and S. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Mar. (204):245-52. [View Abstract]
  67. Kuruvilla G, Steiner GC. Osteofibrous dysplasia-like adamantinoma of bone: a report of five cases with immunohistochemical and ultrastructural studies. Hum Pathol. 1998 Aug. 29 (8):809-14. [View Abstract]

Characteristic radiographic findings of osteofibrous dysplasia. Note eccentric intracortical lesion with sclerosis of internal surface, bubbled appearance of lesion, and anterior tibial bowing.

Radiograph of osteofibrous dysplasia of tibia in 5-year-old girl.

Typical histologic appearance of osteofibrous dysplasia lesion (×100). Note zonal architecture with periphery of active osteoblasts surrounding bone trabeculae.

Histologic section (×100) demonstrating vascular channels within osteofibrous dysplasia lesion, which has been proposed as etiologic factor in development.

Histologic appearance of fibrous dysplasia, revealing appearance similar to osteofibrous dysplasia but lacking periphery of active osteoblasts.

Radiograph of osteofibrous dysplasia of tibia in 5-year-old girl.

Characteristic radiographic findings of osteofibrous dysplasia. Note eccentric intracortical lesion with sclerosis of internal surface, bubbled appearance of lesion, and anterior tibial bowing.

Typical histologic appearance of osteofibrous dysplasia lesion (×100). Note zonal architecture with periphery of active osteoblasts surrounding bone trabeculae.

Histologic section (×100) demonstrating vascular channels within osteofibrous dysplasia lesion, which has been proposed as etiologic factor in development.

Histologic appearance of fibrous dysplasia, revealing appearance similar to osteofibrous dysplasia but lacking periphery of active osteoblasts.