| Literature DB >> 23008768 |
Carmelo Caldarella1, Marco Salsano, Maria Antonietta Isgrò, Giorgio Treglia.
Abstract
Aim. The objective of this study is to systematically review the role of positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in assessing the response to neoadjuvant treatment in patients with osteosarcoma (OS). Methods. A comprehensive literature search of published studies through March 2012 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases regarding whole-body FDG-PET and FDG-PET/CT in patients with OS was performed. Results. Twenty-two studies have investigated the role of FDG-PET and FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment with either chemotherapy or radiation therapy in patients with OS. The main findings of these studies are presented. Conclusion. FDG-PET or PET/CT seems to be sensitive and reliable diagnostic tools in the assessment of metabolic response to treatment in patients with OS, after baseline PET evaluation has been performed in advance. However, false positive findings due to inflammation in sites of tumoral response should be considered.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23008768 PMCID: PMC3449114 DOI: 10.1155/2012/870301
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Imaging ISSN: 2090-1720
Prospective studies.
| Authors (reference) | Journal/year | Patients | Gender | Age | Quantification indexes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jones et al. [ | J Nucl Med/1996 | 9 (3) | 67 | 15–65 | SUV, TBR |
| Schulte et al. [ | J Nucl Med/1999 | 27 (27) | 63 | 5–33 | %TBR |
| Ye et al. [ | Ann Nucl Med/2008 | 15 (15) | 60 | 7–33 | SUV-ratio, %TBR |
| Sato et al. [ | Clin Exp Metastasis/2008 | 13 (13) | 77 | 11–54 | SUV |
| Benz et al. [ | J Nucl Med/2008 | 33 (8) | 49 | 19–86 | SUV, TBR, SUV-ratio, %TBR |
| Benz et al. [ | Sarcoma/2010 | 12 (6) | 42 | 18–61 | SUV, SUV-ratio |
| Denecke et al. [ | Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging/2010 | 27 (11) | 56 | 3–18 | SUV, SUV-ratio |
| Tateishi et al. [ | Clin Nucl Med/2011 | 42 (NR) | 62 | 32–72 | SUV |
| Bajpai et al. [ | J Pediatr Hematol Oncol/2011 | 31 (31) | 81 | 5–66 | SUV, SUV-ratio, MB |
| Im et al. [ | Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging/2012 | 20 (20) | 50 | 10–25 | SUV, MTV, TLG, SUV-ratio, MTV-ratio, %TLG |
SUV: standardized uptake value; TBR: tumour-to-background ratio; MB: metabolic burden; TLG: total lesion glycolysis; %TBR: percent change in TBR (baseline to posttherapy); %TLG: percent change in TLG (baseline to posttherapy); NR: not reported.
Retrospective studies.
| Authors (reference) | Journal/year | Patients (OS) | Gender (% male) | Age (range) | Quantification indexes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nair et al. [ | Clin Positron Imaging/2000 | 16 (16) | 47 | 15–29 | TBR, %TBR |
| Franzius et al. [ | Clin Nucl Med/2000 | 17 (11) | 76 | 5–36 | T : NT-ratio |
| Hawkins et al. [ | Cancer/2002 | 33 (18) | 67 | 6–19 | SUV, SUV-ratio |
| Iagaru et al. [ | Clin Nucl Med/2008 | 14 (7) | 57 | 18–56 | SUV, SUV-ratio |
| Mahajan et al. [ | Pediatr Blood Cancer/2008 | 39 (39) | 49 | 6–20 | SUV |
| Costelloe et al. [ | J Nucl Med/2009 | 31 (31) | 61 | 9–65 | SUV, TLG, %TLG |
| Piperkova et al. [ | Clin Nucl Med/2009 | 83 (NR) | NR | NR | SUV |
| Hamada et al. [ | Ann Nucl Med/2009 | 11 (11) | 64 | 10–68 | SUV, SUV-ratio |
| Hawkins et al. [ | Cancer/2009 | 40 (40) | NR | 7–31 | SUV, SUV-ratio |
| Gaston et al. [ | Skeletal Radiol/2011 | 31 (19) | 42 | 14–38 | SUV, SUV-ratio, MTV, %ID |
| Kim et al. [ | Cancer Res Treat/2011 | 23 (13) | 69 | 3–19 | SUV, SUV-ratio |
| London et al. [ | Pediatr Radiol/2012 | 8 (5) | NR | NR | SUV |
SUV: standardized uptake value; T: NT-ratio: tumour to nontumour ratio; TBR: tumour-to-background ratio; TLG: total lesion glycolysis; %TBR: percent change in TBR (baseline to posttherapy); %TLG: percent change in TLG (baseline to posttherapy); MTV: metabolic tumour volume; %ID: percent injected dose retained within the lesion; NR: not reported.