18FDG PET scanning of benign and malignant musculoskeletal lesions
- 264 Downloads
To describe the technique, applications and advantages of 18FDG PET scanning in detection, analysis and management of musculoskeletal lesions.
Design and patients
Forty-five patients (19 males,26 females) aged 9 to 81 years had radiographs, routine radionuclide scans, CT and/or MRI of clinically suspected active benign or malignant musculoskeletal lesions. 18FDG scans with a Siemens ECAT EXACT 921 dedicated PET unit (Knoxville, Tenn.) and FWH=6 mm images acquired as a 5–6 bed examination (6 min emission and 4 min transmission) used OSEM iterative reconstruction with segmented transmission attenuation correction and a Gaussian filter (cutoff 6.7 mm). Region of interest (ROI) 3×3 pixel image analysis based on transverse whole body images (slice thickness 3.37 mm) generated Maximum Standard Uptake Values (Max SUV) with a cutoff of 2.0 used to distinguish benign and malignant lesions.
Thirty-nine studies were available for SUV ROI analysis. Overall sensitivity for differentiating malignant from benign osseous and non-osseous lesions was 91.7% (22/24), overall specificity was 100% (11/11) with an accuracy of 91.7%. All aggressive lesions had a Max SUV >2.0. Data separating benign from malignant lesions and aggressive from benign lesions were statistically significant (P<0.001) in both categories. There was no statistically significant difference in distinguishing aggressive from malignant lesions (P, ns).
18FDG PET contributes unique information regarding metabolism of musculoskeletal lesions. By supplying a physiologic basis for more informed treatment and management, it influences prognosis and survival. Moreover, since residual, recurrent or metastatic tumors can be simultaneously documented on a single whole body scan, PET may theoretically prove to be cost-effective.
Keywords18FDG PET Musculoskeletal lesions
- 1.Blau M, Nagler W, Bender MA. Fluorine-18 a new isotope for bone scanning. J Nucl Med 1962; 3:332–334.Google Scholar
- 3.Warburg O. The metabolism of tumors. London: Constable, 1930:75–327.Google Scholar
- 4.Schulte M, Brecht-Krauss D, Heymer B, et al. Grading of tumors and tumor-like lesions of bone: evaluation by FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2000; 41:1695–1701.Google Scholar
- 6.Schirrmeister H, Guhlmann A, Elsner K, et al. Sensitivity in detecting osseous lesions depends on anatomic localization: planar bone scintigraphy versus18F PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1623–1629.Google Scholar
- 9.Abdel-Dayem HM. The role of nuclear medicine in primary bone and soft tissue tumors. Semin Nucl Med. 1997; 27:355–363.Google Scholar
- 20.Matthias HM, Schwarzback MD, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, et al. Clinical value of (18F)fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in soft tissue sarcomas. Ann Surg 2002; 231:380–386.Google Scholar
- 29.Wahl RL, Quint LE, Cieslak D, et al. Anatometabolic tumor imaging: fusion of FDG PET with CT or MRI to localize foci of increased activity. J Nucl Med 1993; 34:1190–1197.Google Scholar