Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 131–140 | Cite as

Tumor necrosis in osteosarcoma: inclusion of the point of greatest metabolic activity from F-18 FDG PET/CT in the histopathologic analysis

  • Colleen M. CostelloeEmail author
  • A. Kevin Raymond
  • Nancy E. Fitzgerald
  • Osama R. Mawlawi
  • Rodolfo F. Nunez
  • John E. Madewell
  • Robyn K. Harrell
  • Roland L. Bassett
  • Edith M. Marom
Scientific Article

Abstract

Objective

To determine if the location of the point of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) being included in or not included in the histopathologic slab section corresponded to tumor necrosis or survival.

Materials and methods

Twenty-nine osteosarcoma patients underwent post-chemotherapy [fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron-emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) prior to resection. PET/CT images were correlated with slab-section location as determined by photographs or knowledge of specimen processing. The location of the point of SUVmax was then assigned as being ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the slab section. Cox’s proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate relationships between the location and value of SUVmax and survival. Logistic regression was employed to evaluate tumor necrosis.

Results

No correlation was found between the SUVmax location and survival or tumor necrosis. High SUVmax correlated to poor survival.

Conclusion

High SUVmax value correlated to poor survival. Minimal viable tumor (> 10%) following chemotherapy is a known indicator of poor survival. No correlation was found between the location of SUVmax and survival or tumor necrosis. Therefore, the SUVmax value either does not correspond to a sufficient number of tumor cells to influence tumor necrosis measurement or it was included in the out-of-slab samples that were directed to viable-appearing areas of the gross specimen. Since high SUVmax has been previously found to correspond to poor tumor necrosis, and tumor necrosis is simply an estimate of the amount of viable tumor, SUVmax likely represents many viable tumor cells. Therefore, when not in the slab section, SUVmax was likely included in the tumor necrosis measurement through directed sampling, validating our current method of osteosarcoma specimen analysis.

Keywords

FDG PET-CT Osteosarcoma Standardized uptake value (SUV) Tumor necrosis Survival 

References

  1. 1.
    Gurney JSA, Bulterys M. Malignant bone tumors. National Cancer Institute SEER Pediatric Monograph ICCC. 1999;VIII:99–110.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bacci G, Ferrari S, Bertoni F, Ruggieri P, Picci P, Longhi A, Casadei R, Fabbri N, Forni C, Versari M, Campanacci M. Long-term outcome for patients with nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity treated at the Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli according to the Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli/osteosarcoma-2 protocol: an updated report. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:4016–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilkins RM, Cullen JW, Camozzi AB, Jamroz BA, Odom L. Improved survival in primary nonmetastatic pediatric osteosarcoma of the extremity. Clin Orthop. 2005;438:128–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raymond AK, Chawla SP, Carrasco CH, Ayala AG, Fanning CV, Grice B, Armen T, Plager C, Papadopoulos NE, Edeiken J, et al. Osteosarcoma chemotherapy effect: a prognostic factor. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1987;4:212–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bielack SS, Kempf-Bielack B, Delling G, Exner GU, Flege S, Helmke K, Kotz R, Salzer-Kuntschik M, Werner M, Winkelmann W, Zoubek A, Jurgens H, Winkler K for the Cooperative German-Austrian-Swiss Osteosarcoma Study Group. Prognostic factors in high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremities or trunk: an analysis of 1,702 patients treated on neoadjuvant cooperative osteosarcoma study group protocols. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:776–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mankin HJ, Hornicek FJ, Rosenberg AE, Harmon DC, Gebhardt MC. Survival data for 648 patients with osteosarcoma treated at one institution. Clin Orthop 2004:286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heck RK Jr, Peabody TD, Simon MA. Staging of primary malignancies of bone. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56:366–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marina N. A randomized trial of the European and American Osteosarcoma Study Group to optimize treatment strategies for resectable osteosarcoma based on histological response to pre-operative chemotherapy (IND# 12697). A phase II intergroup study. Protocol-Children's Oncology Group Appendix for AOSTO331 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costelloe CM, Macapinlac HA, Madewell JE, Fitzgerald NE, Mawlawi OR, Rohren EM, Raymond AK, Lewis VO, Anderson PM, Bassett RL Jr, Harrell RK, Marom EM. 18F-FDG PET/CT as an indicator of progression-free and overall survival in osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:340–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hawkins DS, Rajendran JG, Conrad EU 3rd, Bruckner JD, Eary JF. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer. 2002;94:3277–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nair N, Ali A, Green AA, Lamonica G, Alibazoglu H, Alibazoglu B, Hollinger EF, Ahmed K. Response of osteosarcoma to chemotherapy. Evaluation with F-18 FDG-PET scans. Clin Positron Imaging. 2000;3:79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schulte M, Brecht-Krauss D, Werner M, Harteig E, Sarkar MR, Keppler P, Kotzerke J, Guhlmann A, Delling G, Reske SN. Evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy response of osteogenic sarcoma using FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1637–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franzius C, Sciuk J, Brinkschmidt C, Jurgens H, Schober O. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in primary bone tumors with F-18 FDG positron emission tomography compared with histologically assessed tumor necrosis. Clin Nucl Med. 2000;25:874–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamada K, Tomita Y, Inoue A, Fujimoto T, Hashimoto N, Myoui A, Yoshikawa H, Hatazawa J. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in osteosarcoma with FDG-PET. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hawkins DS, Conrad EU Jr, Butrynski JE, Schuetze SM, Eary JF. [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography response is associated with outcome for extremity osteosarcoma in children and young adults. Cancer. 2009; doi: 10.1002/cncr.24421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Franzius C, Bielack S, Flege S, Sciuk J, Jurgens H, Schober O. Prognostic significance of (18)F-FDG and (99 m)Tc-methylene diphosphonate uptake in primary osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1012–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sato J, Yanagawa T, Dobashi Y, Yamaji T, Takagishi K, Watanabe H. Prognostic significance of 18F-FDG uptake in primary osteosarcoma after but not before chemotherapy: a possible association with autocrine motility factor/phosphoglucose isomerase expression. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2008;25:427–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, Graham MM, Karp J, Lammertsma AA, Larson S, Mankoff DA, Siegel BA, Van den Abbeele A, Yap J, Sullivan D. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ye Z, Zhu J, Tian M, Zhang H, Zhan H, Zhao C, Yang D, Li W, Lin N. Response of osteogenic sarcoma to neoadjuvant therapy: evaluated by 18F-FDG-PET. Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22:475–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lahorte CM, Vanderheyden JL, Steinmetz N, Van de Wiele C, Dierckx RA, Slegers G. Apoptosis-detecting radioligands: current state of the art and future perspectives. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:887–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blankenberg FG. Monitoring of treatment-induced apoptosis in oncology with PET and SPECT. Curr Pharm Des. 2008;14:2974–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jaskowiak CJ, Bianco JA, Perlman SB, Fine JP. Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:424–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):11S–20S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mawlawi OKS, Pan T, Rohren E, Macapalnac HA. Factors affecting quantification in PET/CT imaging. Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2008;4:34–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colleen M. Costelloe
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Kevin Raymond
    • 2
  • Nancy E. Fitzgerald
    • 1
  • Osama R. Mawlawi
    • 3
  • Rodolfo F. Nunez
    • 4
  • John E. Madewell
    • 1
  • Robyn K. Harrell
    • 5
  • Roland L. Bassett
    • 5
  • Edith M. Marom
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of RadiologyThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PathologyThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Division of Diagnostic, Department of Imaging PhysicsThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Nuclear MedicineThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiostatisticsThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations