PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate positron emission tomography (PET) using (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) in comparison to volumetry and standardized magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters for the assessment of histological response in paediatric bone sarcoma patients. METHODS: FDG PET and local MRI were performed in 27 paediatric sarcoma patients [Ewing sarcoma family of tumours (EWS), n = 16; osteosarcoma (OS), n = 11] prior to and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy before local tumour resection. Several parameters for assessment of response of the primary tumour to therapy by FDG PET and MRI were evaluated and compared with histopathological regression of the resected tumour as defined by Salzer-Kuntschik. RESULTS: FDG PET significantly discriminated responders from non-responders using the standardized uptake value (SUV) reduction and the absolute post-therapeutic SUV (SUV2) in the entire patient population (SUV, p = 0.005; SUV2, p = 0.011) as well as in the subgroup of OS patients (SUV, p = 0.009; SUV2, p = 0.028), but not in the EWS subgroup. The volume reduction measured by MRI/CT did not significantly discriminate responders from non-responders either in the entire population (p = 0.170) or in both subgroups (EWS, p = 0.950; OS, p = 1.000). The other MRI parameters alone or in combination were unreliable and did not improve the results. Comparing diagnostic parameters of FDG PET and local MRI, metabolic imaging showed high superiority in the subgroup of OS patients, while similar results were observed in the population of EWS. CONCLUSION: FDG PET appears to be a useful tool for non-invasive response assessment in the group of OS patients and is superior to MRI. In EWS patients, however, neither FDG PET nor volumetry or standardized MRI criteria enabled a reliable response assessment to be made after neoadjuvant treatment.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate positron emission tomography (PET) using (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) in comparison to volumetry and standardized magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters for the assessment of histological response in paediatric bone sarcomapatients. METHODS:FDG PET and local MRI were performed in 27 paediatric sarcomapatients [Ewing sarcoma family of tumours (EWS), n = 16; osteosarcoma (OS), n = 11] prior to and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy before local tumour resection. Several parameters for assessment of response of the primary tumour to therapy by FDG PET and MRI were evaluated and compared with histopathological regression of the resected tumour as defined by Salzer-Kuntschik. RESULTS:FDG PET significantly discriminated responders from non-responders using the standardized uptake value (SUV) reduction and the absolute post-therapeutic SUV (SUV2) in the entire patient population (SUV, p = 0.005; SUV2, p = 0.011) as well as in the subgroup of OS patients (SUV, p = 0.009; SUV2, p = 0.028), but not in the EWS subgroup. The volume reduction measured by MRI/CT did not significantly discriminate responders from non-responders either in the entire population (p = 0.170) or in both subgroups (EWS, p = 0.950; OS, p = 1.000). The other MRI parameters alone or in combination were unreliable and did not improve the results. Comparing diagnostic parameters of FDG PET and local MRI, metabolic imaging showed high superiority in the subgroup of OS patients, while similar results were observed in the population of EWS. CONCLUSION:FDG PET appears to be a useful tool for non-invasive response assessment in the group of OS patients and is superior to MRI. In EWSpatients, however, neither FDG PET nor volumetry or standardized MRI criteria enabled a reliable response assessment to be made after neoadjuvant treatment.
Authors: Katja Ott; Ken Herrmann; Florian Lordick; Hinrich Wieder; Wolfgang A Weber; Karen Becker; Andreas K Buck; Martin Dobritz; Ulrich Fink; Kurt Ulm; Tibor Schuster; Markus Schwaiger; Jörg-Rüdiger Siewert; Bernd J Krause Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: G Pan; A K Raymond; C H Carrasco; S Wallace; E E Kim; A Shirkhoda; N Jaffe; J A Murray; R S Benjamin Journal: Radiology Date: 1990-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gi Jeong Cheon; Min Suk Kim; Jun Ah Lee; Soo-Yong Lee; Wan Hyeong Cho; Won Seok Song; Jae-Soo Koh; Ji Young Yoo; Dong Hyun Oh; Duk Seop Shin; Dae-Geun Jeon Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: H J van der Woude; J L Bloem; H C Holscher; M A Nooy; A H Taminiau; J Hermans; T H Falke; P C Hogendoorn Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 1994-10 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: C Baunin; G Schmidt; K Baumstarck; C Bouvier; J C Gentet; A Aschero; A Ruocco; B Bourlière; G Gorincour; C Desvignes; N Colavolpe; G Bollini; P Auqier; P Petit Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Maryam Aghighi; Justin Boe; Jarrett Rosenberg; Rie Von Eyben; Rakhee S Gawande; Philippe Petit; Tarsheen K Sethi; Jeremy Sharib; Neyssa M Marina; Steven G DuBois; Heike E Daldrup-Link Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christoph J Laux; Gundula Berzaczy; Michael Weber; Susanna Lang; Martin Dominkus; Reinhard Windhager; Iris-Melanie Nöbauer-Huhmann; Philipp T Funovics Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-11-30 Impact factor: 3.075