FDG PET imaging for grading and prediction of outcome in chondrosarcoma patients

  • Winfried BrennerEmail author
  • Ernest U. Conrad
  • Janet F. Eary
Original Article


The aims of this study were to assess the potential of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) for tumor grading in chondrosarcoma patients and to evaluate the role of standardized uptake value (SUV) as a parameter for prediction of patient outcome. FDG PET imaging was performed in 31 patients with chondrosarcoma prior to therapy. SUV was calculated for each tumor and correlated to tumor grade and size, and to patient outcome in terms of local relapse or metastatic disease with a mean follow-up period of 48 months. Chondrosarcomas were detectable in all patients. Tumor SUV was 3.38±1.61 for grade I (n=15), 5.44±3.06 for grade II (n=13), and 7.10±2.61 for grade III (n=3). Significant differences were found between patients with and without disease progression: SUV was 6.42±2.70 (n=10) in patients developing recurrent or metastatic disease compared with 3.74±2.22 in patients without relapse (P=0.015). Using a cut-off of 4 for SUV, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for a relapse were 90%, 76%, 64%, and 94%, respectively. Combining tumor grade and SUV, these parameters improved to 90%, 95%, 90%, and 95%, respectively. Pretherapeutic tumor SUV obtained by FDG PET imaging was a useful parameter for tumor grading and prediction of outcome in chondrosarcoma patients. The combination of SUV and histopathologic tumor grade further improved prediction of outcome substantially, allowing identification of patients at high risk for local relapse or metastatic disease.


Chondrosarcoma Positron emission tomography Fluorodeoxyglucose Standardized uptake value 



This work was supported by NIH grant R01-CA65537.

We would like to thank Cheryl Vernon for performing the blood sampling and plasma counting in all our patients and for preparing the patients and PET data.


  1. 1.
    Evans HL, Ayala AG, Romsdahl MM. Prognostic factors in chondrosarcoma of bone: a clinicopathologic analysis with emphasis on histologic grading. Cancer 1977; 40:818–831.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arsos G, Venizelos I, Karatzas N, Koukoulidis A, Karakatsanis C. Low-grade chondrosarcomas: a difficult target for radionuclide imaging. Case report and review of the literature. Eur J Radiol 2002; 43:66–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, et al. FDG PET of primary benign and malignant bone tumors: standardized uptake value in 52 lesions. Radiology 2001; 219:774–777.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eary JF, O’Sullivan F, Powitan Y, et al. Sarcoma tumor FDG uptake measured by PET and patient outcome: a retrospective analysis. Eur J Nucl Med 2002; 29:1149–1154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eary JF, Conrad EU, Bruckner JD, et al. Quantitative [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in pretreatment and grading of sarcoma. Clin Cancer Res 1998; 4:1215–1220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Folpe AL, Lyles RH, Sprouse JT, Conrad EU, Eary JF. (F-18) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a predictor of pathologic grade and other prognostic variables in bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6:1279–1287.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garcia R, Kim EE, Wong FC, et al. Comparison of fluorine-18-FDG PET and technetium-99m-MIBI SPECT in evaluation of musculoskeletal sarcomas. J Nucl Med 1996; 37:1476–1479.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schulte M, Brecht-Krauss D, Heymer B, et al. Grading of tumors and tumorlike lesions of bone: evaluation by FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:1695–1701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, Yanagawa T, et al. Glucose metabolic analysis of musculoskeletal tumours using 18fluorine-FDG PET as an aid to preoperative planning. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000; 82:760–767.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, et al. FDG-PET in differential diagnosis and grading of chondrosarcomas. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999; 23:603–608.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DeGrado TR, Turkington TG, Williams JJ, et al. Performance characteristics of a whole-body PET scanner. J Nucl Med 1994; 35:1398–1406.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewellen TK, Kohlmeyer S, Miyaoka R, Schubert S, Stearns C. Investigation of the count rate performance of the General Electric Advance positron emission tomograph. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1995; 42:1051–1057.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bovee JVMG, Hogendoorn PCW. Cartilage-forming tumours of bone and soft tissue and their differential diagnosis. Curr Diagn Pathol 2001; 7:223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meis-Kindblom JM, Bergh P, Gunterberg B, Kindblom LG. Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma: a reappraisal of its morphologic spectrum and prognostic factors based on 117 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1999; 26:636–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rubin BP, Fletcher JA. Skeletal and extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma: related or distinct tumors? Adv Anat Pathol 1999; 6:204–212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fiorenza F, Abudu A, Grimer RJ, et al. Risk factors for survival and local control in chondrosarcoma of bone. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84:93–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Allal AS, Dulguerov P, Allaoua M, et al. Standardized uptake value of 2-[(18)F] fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose in predicting outcome in head and neck carcinomas treated by radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:1398–1404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graham MM, Peterson LM, Hayward RM. Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake. Nucl Med Biol 2000; 27:647–655.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Higashi K, Ueda Y, Ayabe K, et al. FDG PET in the evaluation of the aggressiveness of pulmonary adenocarcinoma: correlation with histopathological features. Nucl Med Commun 2000; 21:707–714.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dhital K, Saunders CA, Seed PT, O’Doherty MJ, Dussek J. [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and its prognostic value in lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000; 18:425–428.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Winfried Brenner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ernest U. Conrad
    • 2
  • Janet F. Eary
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Nuclear MedicineUniversity of Washington Medical CenterSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of Washington Medical CenterSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations