BACKGROUND: F-Fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is useful in adults with primary bone tumors. Limited published data exist in children. OBJECTIVE: To compare hybrid FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with conventional imaging (CI) modalities in detecting malignant lesions, predicting response to chemotherapy and diagnosing physeal involvement in pediatric primary bone tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of PET/CT and CI reports with histopathology or follow-up > 6 months as reference standard. Response parameters and physeal involvement at diagnosis were compared to histopathology. RESULTS: A total of 314 lesions were detected in 86 scans. Excluding lung lesions, PET/CT had higher sensitivity and specificity than CI (83%, 98% and 78%, 97%, respectively). In lung lesions, PET/CT had higher specificity than CI (96% compared to 87%) but lower sensitivity (80% compared to 93%). Higher initial SUV(max) and greater SUV(max) reduction on PET/CT after chemotherapy predicted a good response. Change in tumor size on MRI did not predict response. Both PET/CT and MRI were very sensitive but of low specificity in predicting physeal tumor involvement. CONCLUSION: PET/CT appears more accurate than CI in detecting malignant lesions in childhood primary bone tumors, excluding lung lesions. It seems better than MRI at predicting tumor response to chemotherapy.
BACKGROUND:F-Fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is useful in adults with primary bone tumors. Limited published data exist in children. OBJECTIVE: To compare hybrid FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with conventional imaging (CI) modalities in detecting malignant lesions, predicting response to chemotherapy and diagnosing physeal involvement in pediatric primary bone tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of PET/CT and CI reports with histopathology or follow-up > 6 months as reference standard. Response parameters and physeal involvement at diagnosis were compared to histopathology. RESULTS: A total of 314 lesions were detected in 86 scans. Excluding lung lesions, PET/CT had higher sensitivity and specificity than CI (83%, 98% and 78%, 97%, respectively). In lung lesions, PET/CT had higher specificity than CI (96% compared to 87%) but lower sensitivity (80% compared to 93%). Higher initial SUV(max) and greater SUV(max) reduction on PET/CT after chemotherapy predicted a good response. Change in tumor size on MRI did not predict response. Both PET/CT and MRI were very sensitive but of low specificity in predicting physeal tumor involvement. CONCLUSION: PET/CT appears more accurate than CI in detecting malignant lesions in childhood primary bone tumors, excluding lung lesions. It seems better than MRI at predicting tumor response to chemotherapy.
Authors: C Franzius; H E Daldrup-Link; A Wagner-Bohn; J Sciuk; W L Heindel; H Jürgens; O Schober Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Scott M Schuetze; Brian P Rubin; Cheryl Vernon; Douglas S Hawkins; James D Bruckner; Ernest U Conrad; Janet F Eary Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: E Bastiaannet; H Groen; P L Jager; D C P Cobben; W T A van der Graaf; W Vaalburg; H J Hoekstra Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Colleen M Costelloe; Homer A Macapinlac; John E Madewell; Nancy E Fitzgerald; Osama R Mawlawi; Eric M Rohren; A Kevin Raymond; Valerae O Lewis; Peter M Anderson; Roland L Bassett; Robyn K Harrell; Edith M Marom Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Thomas Pfluger; Henriette I Melzer; Wolfgang P Mueller; Eva Coppenrath; Peter Bartenstein; Michael H Albert; Irene Schmid Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 9.236