Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 249–256 | Cite as

Diagnostic accuracy of 18 F-FDG-PET and PET/CT in patients with Ewing sarcoma family tumours: a systematic review and a meta-analysis

  • Giorgio TregliaEmail author
  • Marco Salsano
  • Antonella Stefanelli
  • Maria Vittoria Mattoli
  • Alessandro Giordano
  • Lorenzo Bonomo
Review Article

Abstract

Objective

To systematically review and meta-analyse literature data on the diagnostic performance of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with Ewing sarcoma family tumours (ESFT).

Materials and methods

PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases were searched for articles that evaluated FDG-PET and PET/CT in patients with ESFT from inception to 31 May 2011. Studies that fulfilled the three following criteria were included in the systematic review: FDG-PET or PET/CT performed in patients with ESFT; articles about the diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET and PET/CT; sample size of at least 10 patients with ESFT were included. Studies in which there were sufficient data to reassess sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET or PET/CT in ESFT were included in the meta-analysis, excluding duplicate publications. Finally, pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of FDG-PET or PET/CT in ESFT were calculated.

Results

We found 13 studies comprising a total of 342 patients with ESFT. The main findings of the studies included are presented. The meta-analysis of five selected studies provided these results about FDG-PET and PET/CT in ESFT: pooled sensitivity: 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91–99%); pooled specificity: 92% (95% CI 87–96%); area under the ROC curve: 0.97.

Conclusion

With regard to the staging and restaging of patients with ESFT, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of FDG-PET and PET/CT are high; the combination of FDG-PET or PET/CT with conventional imaging is a valuable tool for the staging and restaging of ESFT and has a relevant impact on the treatment strategy plan.

Keywords

Positron emission tomography PET/CT Ewing sarcoma Ewing sarcoma family tumours 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ludwig JA. Ewing sarcoma: historical perspectives, current state-of-the-art, and opportunities for targeted therapy in the future. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008;20:412–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bestic JM, Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW. Use of FDG PET in staging, restaging, and assessment of therapy response in Ewing sarcoma. Radiographics. 2009;29:1487–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lakkaraju A, Patel CN, Bradley KM, Scarsbrook AF. PET/CT in primary musculoskeletal tumours: a step forward. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:2959–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Treglia G, Cason E, Fagioli G. Recent applications of nuclear medicine in diagnostics (first part). Ital J Med. 2010;4:84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franzius C, Sciuk J, Daldrup-Link HE, Jürgens H, Schober O. FDG-PET for detection of osseous metastases from malignant primary bone tumours: comparison with bone scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:1305–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM, Laukamp D, Sciuk J, Jürgens H, et al. Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:229–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Franzius C, Daldrup-Link HE, Sciuk J, Rummeny EJ, Bielack S, Jürgens H, et al. FDG-PET for detection of pulmonary metastases from malignant primary bone tumors: comparison with spiral CT. Ann Oncol. 2001;12:479–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franzius C, Daldrup-Link HE, Wagner-Bohn A, Sciuk J, Heindel WL, Jürgens H, et al. FDG-PET for detection of recurrences from malignant primary bone tumors: comparison with conventional imaging. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:157–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCarville MB, Christie R, Daw NC, Spunt SL, Kaste SC. PET/CT in the evaluation of childhood sarcomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1293–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Györke T, Zajic T, Lange A, Schäfer O, Moser E, Makó E, et al. Impact of FDG PET for staging of Ewing sarcomas and primitive neuroectodermal tumours. Nucl Med Commun. 2006;27:17–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kneisl JS, Patt JC, Johnson JC, Zuger JH. Is PET useful in detecting occult nonpulmonary metastases in pediatric bone sarcomas? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;450:101–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Völker T, Denecke T, Steffen I, Misch D, Schönberger S, Plotkin M, et al. Positron emission tomography for staging of pediatric sarcoma patients: results of a prospective multicentre trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5435–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tateishi U, Yamaguchi U, Seki K, Terauchi T, Arai Y, Kim EE. Bone and soft-tissue sarcoma: preoperative staging with fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and conventional imaging. Radiology. 2007;245:839–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gerth HU, Juergens KU, Dirksen U, Gerss J, Schober O, Franzius C. Significant benefit of multimodal imaging: PET/CT compared with PET alone in staging and follow-up of patients with Ewing tumors. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1932–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Charest M, Hickeson M, Lisbona R, Novales-Diaz JA, Derbekyan V, Turcotte RE. FDG PET/CT imaging in primary osseous and soft tissue sarcomas: a retrospective review of 212 cases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1944–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mody RJ, Bui C, Hutchinson RJ, Yanik GA, Castle VP, Frey KA, et al. FDG PET imaging of childhood sarcomas. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2010;54:222–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vrachimis A, Dirksen U, Wessling J, Wenning C, Stegger L, Franzius C, et al. PET surveillance of patients with Ewing sarcomas of the trunk: must the lower legs be included? Nuklearmedizin. 2010;49:183–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giorgio Treglia
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Marco Salsano
    • 1
  • Antonella Stefanelli
    • 1
  • Maria Vittoria Mattoli
    • 1
  • Alessandro Giordano
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Bonomo
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Bioimaging and Radiological SciencesInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, Catholic University of the Sacred HeartRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Bioimaging and Radiological SciencesInstitute of Radiology, Catholic University of the Sacred HeartRomeItaly
  3. 3.Department of Bioimaging and Radiological SciencesInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, Positron Emission Tomography Centre, Catholic University of the Sacred HeartRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations