Objective: MR-PWI and MR-DWI were supplementary functional methods to differentiate benign from malignant bone tumors. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic potential of MR-PWI conjunction with MR-DWI in differentiat-ing benign from malignant bone tumors. Methods: MR-PWI and MR-DWI were performed on 39 patients by using a 1.5 T MR imager. Perfusion imaging was started with GRE-EPI sequence as soon as the bolus administration commenced. With b value as 300s/mm2,diffusion imaging was performed with SE-EPI sequence. Type of TIC,peak enhancement,steepest slope,signal difference between 2 baselines and ADC were compared between benign and malignant bone tumors. The data were analyzed with soft-ware (SPSS,version 13.0). Subjective overall performance of two techniques was evaluated with Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: 1. MR-PWI: (1) The Patterns of TIC of most benign bone tumors (17/21) were type I and Ⅱ,and all malignant bone tumors were type Ⅲ and IV. (2) There were significant differences in peak enhancement (17.52 ± 2.37 vs. 52.42 ± 5.74) %,steepest slope (4.69 ± 2.84 vs. 9.63 ± 4.05)%/s and signal difference between 2 baselines (6.87 ± 3.34 vs. 31.75 ± 11.09) % between benign and malignant groups. And their diagnosis accuracy was 82.1%,79.5% and 87.2%,respectively. (3). 4 highly vascularized benign bone tumors were mistaken in diagnosis as ma-lignant ones according to their perfusion characteristics. 2. MR-DWI: There was significant difference between ADC of benign and malignant groups [(1.86±0.38) vs. (1.44±0.26)]×10-3 mm2/s when b value was 300 s/mm2. The diagnosis accuracy was 79.5% when ADC value less than 1.63×10-3 mm2/s was considered as malignant ones. 3. The diagnosis accuracy of MR-PWI and MR-DWI were 89.7% and 79.5%,respectively. Conclusion: MR-PWI is the better valuable technique than MR-DWI in differentiation benign from malignant bone tumors. To suspicious highly vascularized bone tumors,MR-PWI combining with MR-DWI lead to higher diagnosis accuracy. Objective: This aim was this study was to assess the diagnostic potential of MR-PWI conjunction with MR-DWI in differentiat-ing benign from malignant bone tumors. Objective: MR-PWI and MR-DWI were supplemented functional methods to differentiate benign from malignant bone tumors Methods: MR-PWI and MR-DWI were performed on 39 patients by using a 1.5 T MR imager. Perfusion imaging was started with GRE-EPI sequence as soon as the bolus administration commenced. With b value as 300s / mm2, Diffusion imaging The data were analyzed with soft-ware (SPSS, version 13.0). Subjective Overall performance of two techniques was evaluated with Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: 1. MR-PWI: (1) The Patterns of TIC of most benign bone tumors (17/21) were type I and II, and all malignant bone tumors were type Ⅲ an d IV. (2) There were significant differences in peak enhancement (17.52 ± 2.37 vs. 52.42 ± 5.74)%, steepest slope (4.69 ± 2.84 vs. 9.63 ± 4.05)% / s and signal difference between 2 baselines (6.87 ± 3.34 (31.75 ± 11.09)% between benign and malignant groups. And their diagnostic accuracy was 82.1%, 79.5% and 87.2%, respectively. (3). 4 highly vascularized benign bone tumors were mistaken in diagnosis as ma- lignant ones according to Their perfusion characteristics. 2. MR-DWI: There was a significant difference between ADC of benign and malignant groups [(1.86 ± 0.38) vs. (1.44 ± 0.26)] × 10-3 mm2 / s when b value was 300 s / mm2 . The diagnosis accuracy was 79.5% when ADC value less than 1.63 × 10-3 mm2 / s was considered as malignant ones. 3. The diagnosis accuracy of MR-PWI and MR-DWI were 89.7% and 79.5%, respectively. Conclusion: MR-PWI is the better valuable technique than MR-DWI in differentiation benign from malignant bone tumors. To suspicious highly vascularized bone tumors, MR-PWI combin ing with MR-DWI lead to higher diagnosis accuracy.