BACKGROUND: Correct pretreatment classification is critical for optimizing diagnosis and treatment of patients with peripheral nerve sheath tumors (PNSTs). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) can differentiate malignant (MPNST) from benign PNSTs. METHODS: Thirty-four adult patients presenting with PNST who underwent a presurgical FDG PET/computed tomography (CT) scan between February 2005 and November 2008 were included in the study. Tumors were characterized histologically, by FDG maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max) [g/mL]), and by CT size (tumor maximal diameter [cm]). The accuracy of FDG PET for differentiating MPNSTs from benign PNSTs (neurofibroma and schwannoma) was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: SUV(max) was measured in 34 patients with 40 tumors (MPNSTs: n = 17; neurofibromas: n = 9; schwannomas: n = 14). SUV(max) was significantly higher in MPNST compared with benign PNST (12.0 +/- 7.1 vs 3.4 +/- 1.8; P < .001). An SUV(max) cutoff point of > or =6.1 separated MPNSTs from BPSNTs with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 91% (P < .001). By ROC curve analysis, SUV(max) reliably differentiated between benign and malignant PNSTs (area under the ROC curve of 0.97). Interestingly, the difference between MPNSTs and schwannomas was less prominent than that between MPNSTs and neurofibromas. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative FDG PET imaging distinguished between MPNSTs and neurofibromas with high accuracy. In contrast, MPNSTs and schwannomas were less reliably distinguished. Given the difficulties in clinically evaluating PNST and in distinguishing benign PNST from MPNST, FDG PET imaging should be used for diagnostic intervention planning and for optimizing treatment strategies.
BACKGROUND: Correct pretreatment classification is critical for optimizing diagnosis and treatment of patients with peripheral nerve sheath tumors (PNSTs). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) can differentiate malignant (MPNST) from benign PNSTs. METHODS: Thirty-four adult patients presenting with PNST who underwent a presurgical FDG PET/computed tomography (CT) scan between February 2005 and November 2008 were included in the study. Tumors were characterized histologically, by FDG maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max) [g/mL]), and by CT size (tumor maximal diameter [cm]). The accuracy of FDG PET for differentiating MPNSTs from benign PNSTs (neurofibroma and schwannoma) was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: SUV(max) was measured in 34 patients with 40 tumors (MPNSTs: n = 17; neurofibromas: n = 9; schwannomas: n = 14). SUV(max) was significantly higher in MPNST compared with benign PNST (12.0 +/- 7.1 vs 3.4 +/- 1.8; P < .001). An SUV(max) cutoff point of > or =6.1 separated MPNSTs from BPSNTs with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 91% (P < .001). By ROC curve analysis, SUV(max) reliably differentiated between benign and malignant PNSTs (area under the ROC curve of 0.97). Interestingly, the difference between MPNSTs and schwannomas was less prominent than that between MPNSTs and neurofibromas. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative FDG PET imaging distinguished between MPNSTs and neurofibromas with high accuracy. In contrast, MPNSTs and schwannomas were less reliably distinguished. Given the difficulties in clinically evaluating PNST and in distinguishing benign PNST from MPNST, FDG PET imaging should be used for diagnostic intervention planning and for optimizing treatment strategies.
Authors: Sung Eun Rha; Jae Young Byun; Seung Eun Jung; Ho Jong Chun; Hae Giu Lee; Jae Mun Lee Journal: Radiographics Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Matthias R Benz; Johannes Czernin; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; William D Tap; Sarah M Dry; David Elashoff; Kira Chow; Vladimir Evilevitch; Jeff J Eckardt; Michael E Phelps; Wolfgang A Weber; Fritz C Eilber Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-04-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Thomas Beyer; Gerald Antoch; Stefan Müller; Thomas Egelhof; Lutz S Freudenberg; Jörg Debatin; Andreas Bockisch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Benjamin S Halpern; Magnus Dahlbom; Andrew Quon; Christian Schiepers; Christian Waldherr; Daniel H Silverman; Osman Ratib; Johannes Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: S Cardona; M Schwarzbach; Ulf Hinz; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; N Attigah; G Mechtersheimer section sign; T Lehnert Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Sylvain Beaulieu; Brian Rubin; David Djang; Ernest Conrad; Eric Turcotte; Janet F Eary Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J Uthoff; F A De Stefano; K Panzer; B W Darbro; T S Sato; R Khanna; D E Quelle; D K Meyerholz; J Weimer; J C Sieren Journal: J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 3.447
Authors: Christian Philipp Reinert; Martin Ulrich Schuhmann; Benjamin Bender; Isabel Gugel; Christian la Fougère; Jürgen Schäfer; Sergios Gatidis Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-12-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: L M Fayad; X Wang; J O Blakeley; D J Durand; M A Jacobs; S Demehri; T K Subhawong; T Soldatos; P B Barker Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Johannes Salamon; Simon Veldhoen; Ivayla Apostolova; Peter Bannas; Jin Yamamura; Jochen Herrmann; Reinhard E Friedrich; Gerhard Adam; Victor F Mautner; Thorsten Derlin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 5.315