UNLABELLED: Tumor glycolytic phenotyping can be accomplished with (18)F-FDG PET. Tumor (18)F-FDG uptake correlates with tumor grade in several cancers. However, the role of (18)F-FDG PET for the grading of soft-tissue sarcomas (STSs) warrants further research. METHODS: One hundred two patients (48 men and 54 women; mean age +/- SD, 50 +/- 17 y) with 12 STS subtypes underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT before treatment. Tumor (18)F-FDG uptake, expressed as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), was compared among subtypes and correlated with histopathologic grade. Two frequently used sarcoma grading systems--the 3-tier system of the French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group (Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer [FNCLCC]) and a 2-tier system (low grade vs. high grade)--were used. RESULTS: More than 90% of STSs (93/102) exhibited a strong glycolytic phenotype (SUVmax, 2.7-52.2 g/mL). Tumor SUVmax differed significantly among tumor grades (P < 0.001 for the 3- and 2-tier grading systems). The FNCLCC and 2-tier grading systems predicted tumor grade with similar accuracy (area under the curve, 0.83 and 0.85, respectively; P = 0.35). SUVmax differed significantly among histologic subtypes (P = 0.03) in the entire population but not when high-grade STSs were analyzed separately (P = 0.31). CONCLUSION: The tumor glycolytic phenotype correlated significantly with histologic grade as determined by both the FNCLCC and 2-tier (high vs. low) grading systems. (18)F-FDG PET cannot be used to reliably distinguish among grade 2 and 3 STSs (by FNCLCC) and the various subtypes.
UNLABELLED: Tumor glycolytic phenotyping can be accomplished with (18)F-FDG PET. Tumor (18)F-FDG uptake correlates with tumor grade in several cancers. However, the role of (18)F-FDG PET for the grading of soft-tissue sarcomas (STSs) warrants further research. METHODS: One hundred two patients (48 men and 54 women; mean age +/- SD, 50 +/- 17 y) with 12 STS subtypes underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT before treatment. Tumor (18)F-FDG uptake, expressed as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), was compared among subtypes and correlated with histopathologic grade. Two frequently used sarcoma grading systems--the 3-tier system of the French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group (Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer [FNCLCC]) and a 2-tier system (low grade vs. high grade)--were used. RESULTS: More than 90% of STSs (93/102) exhibited a strong glycolytic phenotype (SUVmax, 2.7-52.2 g/mL). Tumor SUVmax differed significantly among tumor grades (P < 0.001 for the 3- and 2-tier grading systems). The FNCLCC and 2-tier grading systems predicted tumor grade with similar accuracy (area under the curve, 0.83 and 0.85, respectively; P = 0.35). SUVmax differed significantly among histologic subtypes (P = 0.03) in the entire population but not when high-grade STSs were analyzed separately (P = 0.31). CONCLUSION: The tumor glycolytic phenotype correlated significantly with histologic grade as determined by both the FNCLCC and 2-tier (high vs. low) grading systems. (18)F-FDG PET cannot be used to reliably distinguish among grade 2 and 3 STSs (by FNCLCC) and the various subtypes.
Authors: Douglas S Hawkins; Scott M Schuetze; James E Butrynski; Joseph G Rajendran; Cheryl B Vernon; Ernest U Conrad; Janet F Eary Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andreas K Buck; Ken Herrmann; Christian Meyer Zum Büschenfelde; Malik E Juweid; Mark Bischoff; Gerhard Glatting; Gregor Weirich; Peter Möller; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Klemens Scheidhauer; Tobias Dechow; Christian Peschel; Markus Schwaiger; Sven N Reske Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-04-29 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: George D Demetri; Robert S Benjamin; Charles D Blanke; Jean-Yves Blay; Paolo Casali; Haesun Choi; Christopher L Corless; Maria Debiec-Rychter; Ronald P DeMatteo; David S Ettinger; George A Fisher; Christopher D M Fletcher; Alessandro Gronchi; Peter Hohenberger; Miranda Hughes; Heikki Joensuu; Ian Judson; Axel Le Cesne; Robert G Maki; Michael Morse; Alberto S Pappo; Peter W T Pisters; Chandrajit P Raut; Peter Reichardt; Douglas S Tyler; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Margaret von Mehren; Jeffrey D Wayne; John Zalcberg Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Vladimir Evilevitch; Wolfgang A Weber; William D Tap; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Kira Chow; Scott D Nelson; Fredrick R Eilber; Jeffery J Eckardt; Robert M Elashoff; Michael E Phelps; Johannes Czernin; Fritz C Eilber Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Matthias R Benz; Vladimir Evilevitch; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Fritz C Eilber; Michael E Phelps; Johannes Czernin; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-06-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Rebecca P Chalkidis; Harun Ilhan; Thomas Knösel; Ken Herrmann; Rolf D Issels; Peter Bartenstein; Clemens C Cyran; Lars H Lindner; Marcus Hacker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kyoung Jin Chang; Ilhan Lim; Joon Yeun Park; A Ra Jo; Chang Bae Kong; Won Seok Song; Wan Hyeong Jo; Soo Yong Lee; Jae Soo Koh; Byung Il Kim; Chang Woon Choi; Sang Moo Lim Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-10-30
Authors: Axel Van Der Gucht; Ouidad Zehou; Soraya Djelbani-Ahmed; Laurence Valeyrie-Allanore; Nicolas Ortonne; Pierre Brugières; Pierre Wolkenstein; Alain Luciani; Alain Rahmouni; Emilie Sbidian; Emmanuel Itti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Céline Pinheiro; Valter Penna; Filipa Morais-Santos; Lucas F Abrahão-Machado; Guilherme Ribeiro; Emílio C Curcelli; Marcus V Olivieri; Sandra Morini; Isabel Valença; Daniela Ribeiro; Fernando C Schmitt; Rui M Reis; Fátima Baltazar Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 5.531