| Literature DB >> 25621021 |
Aikeremujiang Muheremu1, Xiaohui Niu1.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and its applications for the diagnosis and treatment of bone tumors. The advantages and disadvantages of PET/CT were also evaluated and compared with other imaging methods and the prospects of PET/CT were discussed. The PubMed, Medline, Elsevier, Wanfang and China International Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for studies published between 1995 and 2013, using the terms 'PET/CT', 'positron emission tomography', 'bone tumor', 'osteosarcoma', 'giant cell bone tumor' and 'Ewing sarcoma'. All the relevant information was extracted and analyzed. A total of 73 studies were selected for the final analysis. The extracted information indicated that at present, PET/CT is the imaging method that exhibits the highest sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Although difficulties and problems remain to be solved, PET/CT is a promising non-invasive method for the diagnostic evaluation of and clinical guidance for bone tumors.Entities:
Keywords: bone tumor; imaging; positron emission tomography/computed tomography
Year: 2014 PMID: 25621021 PMCID: PMC4301511 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2014.2728
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Lett ISSN: 1792-1074 Impact factor: 2.967
Summary of previous studies using positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the diagnosis of musculoskeletal tumors.
| Study, year (Refs.) | No. of patients | SUVmax | SUVmax cut off | Sensitivity, % | Specificity, % | Accuracy, % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| Benign | Malignant | ||||||
| Fuglø 2012 ( | 89 | 95.8 | 92.7 | 93.1 | |||
| Aoki 2003 ( | 114 | 1.80 (SD, ±1.42) | 4.20 (SD, ±3.16) | ||||
| Shin 2008 ( | 34 | 2.9 (range, 0.6–5.5) | 12.0 (range, 4.3–45.7) | 4.7 | 89.6 | 86.7 | 88.2 |
| Piperkova 2008 ( | 93 | 100 | 95.9 | ||||
| Charest 2009 ( | 212 | 93.9 | |||||
| Iagaru 2006 ( | 44 | 100 | 93.3 | ||||
| Strobel ( | 50 | 3.5 (range, 1.6–8.0) | 3.5 ( 1.6–8.0) (range, 1.6–8.0) | 91 | 77 | 86 | |
| Shin 2008 ( | 87 | 5.1 | 8.8 | 4.7 | 80 | 63 | 70 |
| Eary 2002 ( | 209 | 6 (range, 3.8–11.3) | |||||
SD, standard deviation; SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake volume.