Tumor necrosis in osteosarcoma: inclusion of the point of greatest metabolic activity from F-18 FDG PET/CT in the histopathologic analysis
- 165 Downloads
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.
No correlation was found between the SUVmax location and survival or tumor necrosis. High SUVmax correlated to poor survival.
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.
KeywordsFDG PET-CT Osteosarcoma Standardized uptake value (SUV) Tumor necrosis Survival
- 1.Gurney JSA, Bulterys M. Malignant bone tumors. National Cancer Institute SEER Pediatric Monograph ICCC. 1999;VIII:99–110.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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