OBJECTIVE: To evaluate positron emission tomography (PET) using 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) for clinical application in soft tissue sarcomas. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: FDG PET is a promising noninvasive method for the preoperative assessment of soft tissue sarcomas and may complement radiologic tomography. METHODS: Data from 50 consecutive patients with 59 masses, either suspicious for primary or locally recurrent soft tissue sarcoma, were prospectively gathered. The semiquantitative FDG uptake (standardized uptake values [SUVs]) was calculated in tumor and normal tissue (muscle). Histopathology of surgical specimens and follow-up data were used as control criteria. RESULTS: In primary soft tissue sarcomas, PET displayed a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 88%. Local recurrence was detected with a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 92%. All intermediate-grade and high-grade soft tissue sarcomas (primary and locally recurrent) were visualized with a precise differentiation from muscle. Fifty percent of the low-grade sarcomas showed an FDG uptake equivalent to muscle (false-negative results in one primary and three recurrent soft tissue sarcomas). Benign soft tissue tumors (e.g., lipoma, leiomyoma, ganglion) did not accumulate FDG. Inflammation resulted in an increased FDG uptake. The semiquantitative FDG uptake (SUVs) correlated with tumor grade but not with size and histologic type. CONCLUSION: High-grade and intermediate-grade soft tissue sarcomas are amenable to PET imaging, whereas low-grade lesions may not be depicted. SUVs for FDG correlate with tumor grade in soft tissue sarcomas. Benign soft tissue tumors are differentiated from higher-grade soft tissue sarcomas. These data show that FDG-PET can complement preoperative radiologic assessment for soft tissue sarcomas and that FDG-PET is a powerful diagnostic tool for detecting high-grade and intermediate-grade local recurrence.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate positron emission tomography (PET) using 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) for clinical application in soft tissue sarcomas. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: FDG PET is a promising noninvasive method for the preoperative assessment of soft tissue sarcomas and may complement radiologic tomography. METHODS: Data from 50 consecutive patients with 59 masses, either suspicious for primary or locally recurrent soft tissue sarcoma, were prospectively gathered. The semiquantitative FDG uptake (standardized uptake values [SUVs]) was calculated in tumor and normal tissue (muscle). Histopathology of surgical specimens and follow-up data were used as control criteria. RESULTS: In primary soft tissue sarcomas, PET displayed a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 88%. Local recurrence was detected with a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 92%. All intermediate-grade and high-grade soft tissue sarcomas (primary and locally recurrent) were visualized with a precise differentiation from muscle. Fifty percent of the low-grade sarcomas showed an FDG uptake equivalent to muscle (false-negative results in one primary and three recurrent soft tissue sarcomas). Benign soft tissue tumors (e.g., lipoma, leiomyoma, ganglion) did not accumulate FDG. Inflammation resulted in an increased FDG uptake. The semiquantitative FDG uptake (SUVs) correlated with tumor grade but not with size and histologic type. CONCLUSION: High-grade and intermediate-grade soft tissue sarcomas are amenable to PET imaging, whereas low-grade lesions may not be depicted. SUVs for FDG correlate with tumor grade in soft tissue sarcomas. Benign soft tissue tumors are differentiated from higher-grade soft tissue sarcomas. These data show that FDG-PET can complement preoperative radiologic assessment for soft tissue sarcomas and that FDG-PET is a powerful diagnostic tool for detecting high-grade and intermediate-grade local recurrence.
Authors: A C Kole; O E Nieweg; R J van Ginkel; J Pruim; H J Hoekstra; A M Paans; W Vaalburg; H S Koops Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: O E Nieweg; J Pruim; R J van Ginkel; H J Hoekstra; A M Paans; W M Molenaar; H S Koops; W Vaalburg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J Aoki; H Watanabe; T Shinozaki; K Takagishi; M Tokunaga; Y Koyama; N Sato; K Endo Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2003-01-24 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Jesus Fabregas; Tony N Talebi; Caio Rocha Lima; George N Sfakianakis; Philip Robinson; Alberto J Montero Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2011-06
Authors: Matthias H M Schwarzbach; Ulf Hinz; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; Frank Willeke; Servando Cardona; Gunhild Mechtersheimer; Thomas Lehnert; Ludwig G Strauss; Christian Herfarth; Markus W Büchler Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Youssef Erfanian; Johannes Grueneisen; Julian Kirchner; Axel Wetter; Lars Erik Podleska; Sebastian Bauer; Thorsten Poeppel; Michael Forsting; Ken Herrmann; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Matthias R Benz; Johannes Czernin; William D Tap; Jeffrey J Eckardt; Leanne L Seeger; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Sarah M Dry; Michael E Phelps; Wolfgang A Weber; Fritz C Eilber Journal: Sarcoma Date: 2010-04-18
Authors: Bernd Kasper; Thomas Schmitt; Patrick Wuchter; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; Anthony D Ho; Gerlinde Egerer Journal: Mar Drugs Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 5.118