BACKGROUND: Sarcomas represent a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge that requires techniques to provide better assessment of the disease than provided by traditional means. FDG-PET depicts the increased metabolism in abnormal tissues, enabling visualisation and quantification in vivo. The objective of this review was to assess the diagnostic value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and therapy response of soft tissue and bone sarcomas. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies on FDG-PET and sarcomas was conducted. Databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane were searched for studies. Besides that, the references of identified studies were reviewed. Three reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality. Statistical pooling was possible for studies concerning detection and grading of studies with mixed sarcomas (soft tissue and bone) and studies with soft tissue sarcomas only. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. There was disagreement between the reviewers in 21.5% of the questions from the criteria list. The methodological quality of most of the included studies was poor. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET for the detection of sarcomas were 0.91, 0.85 and 0.88, respectively. The difference between the mean Standard Uptake Value (SUV) in malignant and benign tumours for the studies concerning mixed and soft tissue sarcomas was statistically significant, as well as the difference in FDG uptake between low and high grade mixed sarcomas. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis in this study was limited by the fact that only a few studies had mutual comparable outcome parameters. Moreover, the methodological quality of the studies was generally poor. Nevertheless, our results indicate that FDG-PET can discriminate between sarcomas and benign tumours and low and high grade sarcomas based on the mean SUV. The diagnostic implications of these results have to be investigated, especially the discrimination between benign tumours and low grade sarcomas. Based on this meta-analysis, there is no indication to use FDG-PET in the standard treatment of sarcomas. In the future PET imaging in bone and soft tissue sarcomas should be directed to the clinical implication for the detection and grading of sarcomas and the treatment evaluation of locally advanced sarcomas.
BACKGROUND:Sarcomas represent a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge that requires techniques to provide better assessment of the disease than provided by traditional means. FDG-PET depicts the increased metabolism in abnormal tissues, enabling visualisation and quantification in vivo. The objective of this review was to assess the diagnostic value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and therapy response of soft tissue and bone sarcomas. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies on FDG-PET and sarcomas was conducted. Databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane were searched for studies. Besides that, the references of identified studies were reviewed. Three reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality. Statistical pooling was possible for studies concerning detection and grading of studies with mixed sarcomas (soft tissue and bone) and studies with soft tissue sarcomas only. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. There was disagreement between the reviewers in 21.5% of the questions from the criteria list. The methodological quality of most of the included studies was poor. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET for the detection of sarcomas were 0.91, 0.85 and 0.88, respectively. The difference between the mean Standard Uptake Value (SUV) in malignant and benign tumours for the studies concerning mixed and soft tissue sarcomas was statistically significant, as well as the difference in FDG uptake between low and high grade mixed sarcomas. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis in this study was limited by the fact that only a few studies had mutual comparable outcome parameters. Moreover, the methodological quality of the studies was generally poor. Nevertheless, our results indicate that FDG-PET can discriminate between sarcomas and benign tumours and low and high grade sarcomas based on the mean SUV. The diagnostic implications of these results have to be investigated, especially the discrimination between benign tumours and low grade sarcomas. Based on this meta-analysis, there is no indication to use FDG-PET in the standard treatment of sarcomas. In the future PET imaging in bone and soft tissue sarcomas should be directed to the clinical implication for the detection and grading of sarcomas and the treatment evaluation of locally advanced sarcomas.
Authors: Jaap de Boer; Pieter L Jager; Theo Wiggers; Peter Nieboer; A N Machteld Wymenga; Elisabeth Pras; Klaas Hoogenberg; Dirk T Sleijfer; Albert J H Suurmeijer; Winette T A van der Graaf Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-25 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Wim J G Oyen; Corneline J Hoekstra; Otto S Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Antoon T Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee Zijlstra; Anne M Paans; Emile F I Comans; Jan Pruim Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mahsa Eskian; Abass Alavi; MirHojjat Khorasanizadeh; Benjamin L Viglianti; Hans Jacobsson; Tara D Barwick; Alipasha Meysamie; Sun K Yi; Shingo Iwano; Bohdan Bybel; Federico Caobelli; Filippo Lococo; Joaquim Gea; Antonio Sancho-Muñoz; Jukka Schildt; Ebru Tatcı; Constantin Lapa; Georgia Keramida; Michael Peters; Raef R Boktor; Joemon John; Alexander G Pitman; Tomasz Mazurek; Nima Rezaei Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 9.236