Literature DB >> 18097248

F-18 FDG PET and PET/CT evaluation of response to chemotherapy in bone and soft tissue sarcomas.

Andrei Iagaru1, Rinat Masamed, Sant P Chawla, Lawrence R Menendez, Alex Fedenko, Peter S Conti.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: F-18 FDG PET has been used to grade sarcomas and assess response to therapy in advanced disease. Certain chemotherapy agents are thought to induce an inflammatory response in the tumor bed that can make interpretation of post-therapy FDG PET scans difficult. A review of our experience with PET in assessing therapy response in osseous and soft tissue sarcomas (OSTS) is presented.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study (January 1999 to December 2004) of 14 patients with histologic diagnosis of OSTS, who had 2 consecutive PET examinations for evaluation of chemotherapy response. The group included 8 men and 6 women, with age range of 18 to 56 years (average, 36 +/- 14). Semiquantitative assessment of FDG uptake was performed by calculating maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) before and after treatment. The response to therapy was assessed independently by tumor necrosis at post-therapy surgery and according to European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria for PET. The follow-up PET examinations were performed at an interval of 28 to 166 days (average, 90 +/- 45). All patients ended the ifosfamide regimen at 7 to 36 (average, 16 +/- 9) days before the follow-up PET scans. Five of them received methotrexate, adriamycin, and/or cisplatin as well.
RESULTS: Based on the EORTC criteria alone, 3 patients (21.4%) had progression of disease (increase in SUVmax of 29%-69%; mean, 48% +/- 20%), 5 patients (35.7%) had stable disease, and 6 patients (42.8%) had partial response (decrease in SUVmax of 27%-84%; mean, 62% +/- 23%). Across all patients, the tumor necrosis postchemotherapy ranged from 5% to 100% (mean, 64% +/- 34%). In 8 patients (57.1%) the tumor necrosis correlated with the SUVmax changes. However, for 3 patients, the SUVmax changes indicated partial response despite necrosis of fewer than 90% of the surgical specimens, whereas 3 patients with >90% tumor necrosis had SUVmax changes indicative of stable disease.
CONCLUSION: The pathologically determined degree of necrosis postneoadjuvant chemotherapy was concordant with PET-assessed EORTC classification of response in 57.1% of the cases. However, a significant number of patients had discrepancies, which may be in part explained by chemotherapy-induced inflammation. The latter should be considered during post-therapy PET interpretation in OSTS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18097248     DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e31815c4fd4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Nucl Med        ISSN: 0363-9762            Impact factor:   7.794


  11 in total

1.  18F-FDG PET response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma are different.

Authors:  Louie L Gaston; Claudia Di Bella; John Slavin; Rodney J Hicks; Peter F M Choong
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-02-06       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Comparison of MRI and PET-CT in detecting the loco-regional recurrence of soft tissue sarcomas during surveillance.

Authors:  Sun-Young Park; Hye Won Chung; Sun Young Chae; Jong-Seok Lee
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Tandem dosing of samarium-153 ethylenediamine tetramethylene phosphoric acid with stem cell support for patients with high-risk osteosarcoma.

Authors:  David M Loeb; Robert F Hobbs; Amarachukwu Okoli; Allen R Chen; Steve Cho; Senthamizhchelvan Srinivasan; George Sgouros; Ori Shokek; Moody D Wharam; Tammy Scott; Cindy L Schwartz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-08-16       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Sarcoma mid-therapy [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) and patient outcome.

Authors:  Janet F Eary; Ernest U Conrad; Janet O'Sullivan; Douglas S Hawkins; Scott M Schuetze; Finbarr O'Sullivan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Integrated 18F-FDG PET/MRI compared to MRI alone for identification of local recurrences of soft tissue sarcomas: a comparison trial.

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

6.  Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for osseous and soft tissue sarcomas: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Aikeremujiang Muheremu; Junyi Ma; Aierken Amudong; Yong Ma; Maimaitiaili Niyazi; Yong Ou; Yuan Ma
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-07-18

7.  Comparison of 3T diffusion-weighted MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in musculoskeletal tumours: quantitative analysis of apparent diffusion coefficients and standardized uptake values.

Authors:  So-Yeon Lee; Won-Hee Jee; Ie Ryung Yoo; Joon-Yong Jung; Soo-A Im; Yang-Guk Chung; Jin Hyoung Kang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  The Role of Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Assessing the Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment in Patients with Osteosarcoma.

Authors:  Carmelo Caldarella; Marco Salsano; Maria Antonietta Isgrò; Giorgio Treglia
Journal:  Int J Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-09-13

9.  The role of FDG PET/CT in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for localized bone sarcomas.

Authors:  Emanuela Palmerini; Marco Colangeli; Cristina Nanni; Stefano Fanti; Emanuela Marchesi; Anna Paioli; Piero Picci; Silvia Cambioli; Davide Donati; Luca Cevolani; Massimiliano De Paolis; Marco Gambarotti; Stefano Ferrari
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 10.  Promises and challenges of positron emission tomography for assessment of sarcoma in daily clinical practice.

Authors:  A C M van de Luijtgaarden; J W J de Rooy; L F de Geus-Oei; W T A van der Graaf; W J G Oyen
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2008-10-04       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.