Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 34, Issue 8, pp 614–619 | Cite as

Colour Doppler ultrasound predicts chemotherapy response, but not survival in paediatric osteosarcoma

  • Jos A. M. Bramer
  • Feikje M. Gubler
  • Mario Maas
  • Hans Bras
  • Jan de Kraker
  • Jan W. van der Eijken
  • Gerard R. Schaap
Original Article


Background: Histological response to chemotherapy is an important prognostic factor in osteosarcoma, influencing therapeutic considerations. It would be advantageous to be able to assess chemotherapy response, and predict survival, prior to tumour resection. Colour Doppler US (CDUS) is non-invasive, non-demanding for the patient, and easy to plan. This makes the method especially suitable for children, who comprise the majority of patients. Objective: To establish the value of CDUS for pre-operative prediction of chemotherapy response and survival, using widely available US equipment. Materials and methods: CDUS was performed in 21 consecutive patients before and after chemotherapy. Peak systolic velocity (PSV) in the soft-tissue component of the tumour and quotient of resistive index (QRI) of the feeding artery and contralateral control were calculated. A pathologist, unaware of CDUS results, assessed the response to chemotherapy after resection. Results: QRI change after chemotherapy was significantly higher in histological responders. No correlation of QRI change with survival was found. There was no significant difference in PSV change comparing any subgroup. CDUS appeared useful in predicting chemotherapy response (sensitivity 83%, specificity 86%), especially for negative response (predictive value 92%). Survival could not be predicted accurately. Conclusions: CDUS can predict chemotherapy response, but not survival. The method could be useful in planning treatment prior to definitive surgery.


Skeleton Long bone Primary neoplasm Osteosarcoma Treatment effect Colour Doppler ultrasound Child 


  1. 1.
    Davis AM, Bell RS, Goodwin PJ (1994) Prognostic factors in osteosarcoma: a critical review. J Clin Oncol 12:423–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Woude HJ, Bloem JL, van Oostayen JA, et al (1995) Treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: the utility of sequential color Doppler sonography in predicting histopathologic response. AJR 165:125–133PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Enneking WF (1986) A system of staging musculoskeletal neoplasms. Clin Orthop March (204):9–24Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Winkler K, Beron G, Delling G, et al (1988) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of osteosarcoma: results of a randomized cooperative trial (COSS-82) with salvage chemotherapy based on histological tumor response. J Clin Oncol 6:329–337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fixsen JA (1983) Rotation-plasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 65:529–530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosen G, Caparros B, Huvos AG, et al (1982) Preoperative chemotherapy for osteogenic sarcoma: selection of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy based on the response of the primary tumor to preoperative chemotherapy. Cancer 49:1221–1230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salzer-Kuntschik M, Delling G, Beron G, et al (1983) Morphological grades of regression in osteosarcoma after polychemotherapy—study COSS 80. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 106[Suppl]:21–24Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van der Woude HJ, Bloem JL, Schipper J, et al (1994) Changes in tumor perfusion induced by chemotherapy in bone sarcomas: color Doppler flow imaging compared with contrast-enhanced MR imaging and three-phase bone scintigraphy. Radiology 191:421–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fletcher BD (1991) Response of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma to chemotherapy: imaging evaluation. AJR 157:825–833Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holscher HC, Hermans J, Nooy MA, et al (1996) Can conventional radiographs be used to monitor the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with osteogenic sarcoma? Skeletal Radiol 25:19–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carrasco CH, Charnsangavej C, Raymond AK, et al (1989) Osteosarcoma: angiographic assessment of response to preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology 170:839–842PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schillaci O, Spanu A, Scopinaro F, et al (2003) Technetium-99m tetrofosmin scintigraphy in pediatric osteogenic sarcoma. Oncol Rep 10:605–608PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erlemann R, Sciuk J, Bosse A, et al (1990) Response of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma to preoperative chemotherapy: assessment with dynamic and static MR imaging and skeletal scintigraphy. Radiology 175:791–796PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Woude HJ, Bloem JL, Hogendoorn PC (1998) Preoperative evaluation and monitoring chemotherapy in patients with high-grade osteogenic and Ewing’s sarcoma: review of current imaging modalities. Skeletal Radiol 27:57–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gorlick R, Liao AC, Antonescu C, et al (2001) Lack of correlation of functional scintigraphy with (99m)technetium-methoxyisobutylisonitrile with histological necrosis following induction chemotherapy or measures of P-glycoprotein expression in high-grade osteosarcoma. Clin Cancer Res 7:3065–3070PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riebel T, Knop J, Winkler K, et al (1986) Comparative x-ray and nuclear medical studies of osteosarcomas to evaluate the effectiveness of preoperative chemotherapy (in German). ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed 145:365–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hansmann HJ, Wunsch C, Darge K, et al (1998) Diagnostic imaging for therapy control of primary bone tumors (in German). Radiologe 38:523–529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knop J, Delling G, Heise U, et al (1990) Scintigraphic evaluation of tumor regression during preoperative chemotherapy of osteosarcoma. Correlation of (99m)Tc-methylene diphosphonate parametric imaging with surgical histopathology. Skeletal Radiol 19:165–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schulte M, Brecht-Krauss D, Werner M et al (1999) Evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy response of osteogenic sarcoma using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 40:1637–1643PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hawkins DS, Rajendran JG, Conrad EU III, et al (2002) Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer 94:3277–3284Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Franzius C, Bielack S, Flege S, et al (2002) Prognostic significance of (18)F-FDG and (99m)Tc-methylene diphosphonate uptake in primary osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med 43:1012–1017PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bonnerot V, Charpentier A, Frouin F, et al (1992) Factor analysis of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in predicting the response of osteosarcoma to chemotherapy. Invest Radiol 27:847–855PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fletcher BD, Hanna SL, Fairclough DL, et al (1992) Pediatric musculoskeletal tumors: use of dynamic, contrast-enhanced MR imaging to monitor response to chemotherapy. Radiology 184:243–248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lang P, Vahlensieck M, Matthay KK, et al (1996) Monitoring neovascularity as an indicator of response to chemotherapy in osteogenic and Ewing sarcoma using magnetic resonance angiography. Med Pediatr Oncol 26:329–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ongolo-Zogo P, Thiesse P, Sau J, et al (1999) Assessment of osteosarcoma response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparative usefulness of dynamic gadolinium-enhanced spin-echo magnetic resonance imaging and technetium-99m skeletal angioscintigraphy. Eur Radiol 9:907–914CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dyke JP, Panicek DM, Healey JH, et al (2003) Osteogenic and Ewing sarcomas: estimation of necrotic fraction during induction chemotherapy with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 228:271–278PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jos A. M. Bramer
    • 1
  • Feikje M. Gubler
    • 2
  • Mario Maas
    • 3
  • Hans Bras
    • 4
  • Jan de Kraker
    • 5
  • Jan W. van der Eijken
    • 1
  • Gerard R. Schaap
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of RadiologySpaarne ZiekenhuisHeemstedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of PathologyAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Paediatric OncologyAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations