OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of SUV-based parameters derived from [(18) F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in order to optimize non-invasive prediction of soft tissue tumour (STT) grade. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-nine lesions from 123 patients who underwent FDG-PET for primary staging (n = 79) or assessment of recurrence (n = 44) of STT were analyzed retrospectively. Histopathology was the reference standard for tumour grading. Absolute values and tumour-to-liver ratios of several standardized uptake value (SUV) parameters were correlated with tumour grading. RESULTS: At primary diagnosis SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmax/SUVliver and SUVpeak/SUVliver showed good correlation with tumour grade. SUVpeak (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic, AUC-ROC: 0.82) and SUVpeak/SUVliver (AUC-ROC: 0.82) separated best between low grade (WHO intermediate, grade 1 sarcoma, and low risk gastrointestinal stromal tumours, GISTs) and high grade (grade 2/3 sarcoma and intermediate/high risk GISTs) lesions: optimal threshold for SUVpeak/SUVliver was 2.4, which resulted in a sensitivity of 79 % and a specificity of 81 %. At disease recurrence, the AUC-ROC was <0.75 for each parameter. CONCLUSIONS: A tumour SUVpeak of at least 2.4 fold mean liver uptake predicts high grade histopathology with good diagnostic accuracy at primary staging. At disease recurrence, FDG-PET does not reliably separate high and low grade lesions. KEY POINTS: • Several SUV parameters accurately predict soft tissue sarcoma grade at primary diagnosis. • Tumour-to-liver ratios are of comparable value to absolute SUV parameters. • SUV peak /SUV liver >2.4 had 79 % sensitivity and 81 % specificity for high grade lesions. • At recurrence, FDG PET does not reliably indicate high grade sarcomas.
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of SUV-based parameters derived from [(18) F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in order to optimize non-invasive prediction of soft tissue tumour (STT) grade. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-nine lesions from 123 patients who underwent FDG-PET for primary staging (n = 79) or assessment of recurrence (n = 44) of STT were analyzed retrospectively. Histopathology was the reference standard for tumour grading. Absolute values and tumour-to-liver ratios of several standardized uptake value (SUV) parameters were correlated with tumour grading. RESULTS: At primary diagnosis SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmax/SUVliver and SUVpeak/SUVliver showed good correlation with tumour grade. SUVpeak (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic, AUC-ROC: 0.82) and SUVpeak/SUVliver (AUC-ROC: 0.82) separated best between low grade (WHO intermediate, grade 1 sarcoma, and low risk gastrointestinal stromal tumours, GISTs) and high grade (grade 2/3 sarcoma and intermediate/high risk GISTs) lesions: optimal threshold for SUVpeak/SUVliver was 2.4, which resulted in a sensitivity of 79 % and a specificity of 81 %. At disease recurrence, the AUC-ROC was <0.75 for each parameter. CONCLUSIONS: A tumour SUVpeak of at least 2.4 fold mean liver uptake predicts high grade histopathology with good diagnostic accuracy at primary staging. At disease recurrence, FDG-PET does not reliably separate high and low grade lesions. KEY POINTS: • Several SUV parameters accurately predict soft tissue sarcoma grade at primary diagnosis. • Tumour-to-liver ratios are of comparable value to absolute SUV parameters. • SUV peak /SUV liver >2.4 had 79 % sensitivity and 81 % specificity for high grade lesions. • At recurrence, FDG PET does not reliably indicate high grade sarcomas.
Authors: Rajan Rakheja; William Makis; Sonia Skamene; Ayoub Nahal; Fadi Brimo; Laurent Azoulay; Jonathan Assayag; Robert Turcotte; Marc Hickeson Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alexander R Haug; Beauclair P Tiega Donfack; Christoph Trumm; Christoph J Zech; Marlies Michl; Rüdiger Paul Laubender; Christopher Uebleis; Peter Bartenstein; Volker Heinemann; Marcus Hacker Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matthias R Benz; Sarah M Dry; Fritz C Eilber; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; William D Tap; David Elashoff; Michael E Phelps; Johannes Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christopher D M Fletcher; Jules J Berman; Christopher Corless; Fred Gorstein; Jerzy Lasota; B Jack Longley; Markku Miettinen; Timothy J O'Leary; Helen Remotti; Brian P Rubin; Barry Shmookler; Leslie H Sobin; Sharon W Weiss Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Carol J Swallow; Dirk C Strauss; Sylvie Bonvalot; Piotr Rutkowski; Anant Desai; Rebecca A Gladdy; Ricardo Gonzalez; David E Gyorki; Mark Fairweather; Winan J van Houdt; Eberhard Stoeckle; Jae Berm Park; Markus Albertsmeier; Carolyn Nessim; Kenneth Cardona; Marco Fiore; Andrew Hayes; Dimitri Tzanis; Jacek Skoczylas; Samuel J Ford; Deanna Ng; John E Mullinax; Hayden Snow; Rick L Haas; Dario Callegaro; Myles J Smith; Toufik Bouhadiba; Silvia Stacchiotti; Robin L Jones; Thomas DeLaney; Christina L Roland; Chandrajit P Raut; Alessandro Gronchi Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 4.339