Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Medical Radiology ((Med Radiol Diagn Imaging))

  • 2680 Accesses

Abstract

PET imaging with Fluorine-18 2-Fluoro-2-Deoxyglucose or FDG PET can be quite useful for both primary bone tumors and soft tissue sarcomas. There are major indications for PET imaging for malignant processes including screening, diagnosis, staging, restaging, and monitoring response to therapy (Bestic et al. (Radiographics 29(5):1487–1500, 2009; Piperkova et al. Clin Nuclear Med 34(3):146–150, 2009). FDG PET has a limited role in the diagnosis of musculoskeletal tumors and has no role in screening for such lesions. PET has however proven quite efficacious for staging and restaging of musculoskeletal tumors (Bestic et al. Radiographics 29(5):1487–1500, 2009; Piperkova et al. Clin Nuclear Med 34(3):146–150, 2009). In addition PET can be useful for evaluating response to therapy of musculoskeletal tumors (Benz et al. Clin Cancer Res 15(8):2856–2863, 2009; Iagaru et al. Clin Nuclear Med 33(1):8–13, 2008). Most musculoskeletal lesions are sufficiently glucose-avid for FDG PET to reliably depict distant tumor involvement, local spread or recurrence (Charest et al. Euro J Null Med Mol Imaging 36:1944–1951, 2009). This chapter will examine the current utility and applications of FDG PET imaging for evaluation of musculoskeletal neoplasms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, Takagishi K, Ishijima H, Oya N, Sato N, Inoue T, Endo K (2001) FDG PET of primary benign and malignant bone tumors: standardized uptake value in 52 lesions. Radiology 219:774–777

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bastiaannet E, Groen H, Jager PL, Cobben DC, van der Graff WT, Vaalburg W, Hoekstra HJ (2004) The value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading, and response to therapy of soft tissue and bone sarcomas; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 30:83–101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Benz MR, Czernin J, Allen-Aurbach MS, Tap WD, Dry SM, Elashoff D, Chow K, Evilevitch V, Eckardt JJ, Phelps ME (2009) FDG PET/CT imaging predicts histopathologic treatment responses after the initial cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Cancer Res 15:2856–2863

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bestic JM, Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW (2009) Use of FDG PET in staging, restaging, and assessment of therapy response in Ewing sarcoma. Radiographics. Sep–Oct 29:1487–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bredella MA, Caputo GR, Steinbach LS (2002) Value of FDG positron emission tomography in conjunction with MR imaging for evaluating therapy response in patients with musculoskeletal sarcomas. AJR 179:1145–1150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner W, Conrad EU, Eary JF (2004) FDG PET imaging for grading and prediction of outcome in chondrosarcoma patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:189–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bury T, Bareto A, Daenen F, Barthelemy N, Ghaye B, Rigo P (1998) Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the detection of bone metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 25:1244–1247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Charest M, Hickeson M, Lisbona R, Novales-Diaz JA, Derbekyan V, Turcotte RE (2009) FDG PET/CT imaging in primary osseous and soft tissue sarcomas: a retrospective review of 212 cases. Euro J Null Med Mol Imaging 36:1944–1951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook GJ, Houston S, Rubens R, Maisey MN, Fogelman I (1998) Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by (18)FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. J Clin Oncol 16:3375–3379

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Costelloe CM, Macapinlac HA, Madewell JE, Fitzgold NE, Mawlawi OR, Rohren EM, Raymond AK, Lewis VO, Anderson PM, Bassett RL, Harrell RK, Marom EM (2009) 18F-FDG PET/CT as an indicator of progression-free and overall survival in osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med 50:340–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM, Laukamp D, Sciuk J, Jurgens H, Schober O, Rummeny EJ (2001) Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. AJR 177:229–236

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eary JF, O’Sullivan F, Powitan Y, Chandhury KR, Vernon C, Bruckner JD, Conrad EU (2002) Sarcoma tumor FDG uptake measured by PET and patient outcome: a retrospective analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29:1149–1154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • El-Zeftawy H, Heiba SI, Jana S, Rosen G, Salem S, Santiago JF, Abdel-Dayem HM (2001) Role of repeated F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in management of patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 16:37–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman F, Van Heertum R, Saxena C (2006) 18-Fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography evaluation of benign versus malignant osteochondromas: preliminary observations. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:858–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman F, Van Heertum R, Saxena C, Parisien M (2005) 18-FDG-PET applications for cartilage neoplasms. Skeletal Radiol 34:367–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franzius C, Bielack S, Flege S, Sciuk J, Jurgens H, Schober O (2002a) Prognostic significance of 18F-FDG and 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate uptake in primary osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med 43:1012–1017

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Franzius C, Daldrup-Link HE, Wagner-Bohn A, Sciuk J, Heindel WL, Jurgens H, Schober O (2002b) FDG-PET for detection of recurrences from malignant primary bone tumors: comparison with conventional imaging. Ann Oncol 13:157–160

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fogelman I, Cook G, Israel O, Van der Wall H (2005) Positron emission tomography and bone metastases. Semin Nucl Med 35:135–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin GS, Shulkin BL, Kaufman RA, McCarville MB (2006) PET/CT characterization of fibroosseous defects in children:18F-FDG uptake can mimic metastatic disease. AJR 187:1124–1128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins DS, Rajendran JG, Conrad III EU, Bruckner JD, Eary JF (2002a) Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. Am Cancer Soc 94:3277–3284

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins DS, Rajendran JG, Conrad III EU, Bruckner JD, Eary JF (2002b) Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcoma by [f-18]-fluorodeoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer 94:3277–3284

    Google Scholar 

  • Heike ED, Christiane F, Link TM, Laukamp D, Sciuk J, Jurgens H et al (2001) Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. Am J Roentgenol 177:229–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Heusner T, Golitz P, Hamami M, Eberhardt W, Stefan E, Forsting M, Bockisch A, Antoch G (2009) “One-stop-shop” staging: should we prefer FDG PET/CT or MRI for the detection of bone metastases? Eur J Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.10.031

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho YY (2005) Review of non-positron emission tomography functional imaging or primary musculoskeletal tumours: beyond the humble bone scan. Austral Radiol 49:445–459

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Iagaru A, Masamed R, Chawla SP, Menendez LR, Fedenko A, Conti PS (2008) F-18 FDG PET and PET/CT Evaluation of response to chemotherapy in bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Nuclear Med 33:8–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jadvar H, Gamie S, Romanna L, Conti PS (2004) Musculoskeletal system. Semin Nucl Med 34:254–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klaeser B, Mueller MD, Schmid RA, Guevara C, Krause T, Wiskerchen J (2009) PET-CT-guided interventions in the management of FDG-positive lesions in patients suffering from solid malignancies: initial experiences. Eur Radiol 19:1780–1785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lisle JW, Eary JF, O’Sullivan J, Conrad EU (2009) Risk assessment based on FDG-PET imaging in patients with synovial sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:1605–1611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra P, Berman CG (2002) Evaluation of bone metastases in lung cancer. Imag Oncol 9:254–260

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarville MB, Christe R, Daw NC, Spunt SL, Kaste SC (2005) PET/CT in the evaluation of childhood sarcomas. AJR 184:1293–1304

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moog F, Kotzerke J, Reske SN (1999) FDG PET can replace bone scintigraphy in primary staging of malignant lymphoma. J Nucl Med 40:1407–1413

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan PJ, Rohren EM, Madewell JE (2008) Positron emission tomography-CT imaging in guiding musculoskeletal biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am 46:475–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson JJ (2007) F-18 FDG-PET for detection of osseous metastatic disease and staging, restaging, and monitoring response to therapy of musculoskeletal tumors. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 11:246–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson JJ, Kransdorf MJ, O’Connor MI (2003) Diagnosis of occult bone metastases: positron emission tomography. Clin Orthop Relat Res 415S:S120–S128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piperkova E, Mikhaeil M, Mouasavi A, Libes R, Viejo-Rullan LH, Rosen G, Abdel-Dayem H (2009) Impact of PET and CT in PET/CT studies for staging and evaluating treatment response in bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Nuclear Med 34:146–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rybak LD, Rosenthal DI (2001) Radiological imaging for the diagnosis of bone metastases. J Nucl Med 45:53–64

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schirrmeister H, Bommer M, Buck AK, Muller S, Messer P, Bunjes D, Mottaghy FM, Krause BJ, Neumaier B, Döhner H, Möller P, Reske SN (2002) Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med 29:361–366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki H, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, Yanagawa T, Suzuki R, Takagishi K (2004) Positron emission tomography imaging of musculoskeletal tumors in the shoulder girdle. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13:635–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Volker T, Denecke T, Steffen I, Misch D, Schonberger S, Plotkin M, Ruf J, Furth C, Stover B, Hautzel G, Henze G, Amthauer H (2007) Positron emission tomography for staging of pediatric sarcoma patients: results of a prospective multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol 25:5435–5441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yang SN, Liang JA, Lin FJ, Kao CH, Lin CC, Lee CC (2002) Comparing whole body 18F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate bone scan to detect bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 128:325–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey J. Peterson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peterson, J.J. (2012). Musculoskeletal. In: Peller, P., Subramaniam, R., Guermazi, A. (eds) PET-CT and PET-MRI in Oncology. Medical Radiology(). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/174_2011_529

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/174_2011_529

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-01138-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-01139-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics