Total lesion glycolysis by 18F-FDG PET/CT is a reliable predictor of prognosis in soft-tissue sarcoma
- 941 Downloads
Preoperative identification of aggressiveness is important for the establishment of a treatment strategy in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma (STS). We compared the predictive values of various metabolic parameters derived from PET/CT with 18F-FDG, including maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax), total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and metabolic tumour volume (MTV).
A total of 66 patients with STS who had undergone FDG PET/CT before tumour resection were reviewed retrospectively. We determined SUVmax, TLG and MTV to compare their value in predicting disease progression, which was defined as local recurrence and metastases. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to compare the accuracy. Univariate and multivariate analyses of conventional clinicopathological variables were used to compare the reliability of the metabolic parameters.
TLG exhibited greater accuracy than SUVmax or MTV in ROC analysis (area under curve, AUC, 0.802, 0.726 and 0.681, respectively). The cut-off values for disease progression derived from the AUC data were TLG 250; SUVmax 6.0, and MTV 40 cm3. In univariate analysis, TLG (>250) was a more significant predictive factor than SUVmax and MTV (P < 0.001, P = 0.031 and P = 0.022, respectively). TLG was the only meaningful metabolic parameter in the multivariate analysis (P = 0.008) other than presence of metastasis at diagnosis (P = 0.003).
TLG is a more accurate predictor of disease progression than SUVmax or MTV. TLG enables accurate preoperative assessment of aggressiveness comparable with conventional clinicopathological parameters.
KeywordsFDG PET/CT Total lesion glycolysis Standardized uptake value Metabolic tumour volume Soft tissue sarcoma
Conflicts of interest
- 4.Schwarzbach MH, Hinz U, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Willeke F, Cardona S, Mechtersheimer G, et al. Prognostic significance of preoperative [18-F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in patients with resectable soft tissue sarcomas. Ann Surg. 2005;241:286–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Fuglo HM, Jorgensen SM, Loft A, Hovgaard D, Petersen MM. The diagnostic and prognostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the initial assessment of high-grade bone and soft tissue sarcoma. A retrospective study of 89 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1416–24. doi: 10.1007/s00259-012-2159-z.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Akhurst T, Ng V, Larson SM, O'Donoghue JA, O'Neel J, Erdi Y, et al. Tumor burden assessment with positron emission tomography with [18-F] 2-fluoro 2-deoxyglucose (FDG PET) modeled in metastatic renal cell cancer. Clin Positron Imaging. 2000;3:57–65.Google Scholar
- 8.Bastiaannet E, Groen H, Jager PL, Cobben DC, van der Graaf WT, Vaalburg W, et al. The value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and response to therapy of soft tissue and bone sarcomas; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev. 2004;30:83–101. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2003.07.004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Im HJ, Kim TS, Park SY, Min HS, Kim JH, Kang HG, et al. Prediction of tumour necrosis fractions using metabolic and volumetric 18F-FDG PET/CT indices, after one course and at the completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in children and young adults with osteosarcoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:39–49. doi: 10.1007/s00259-011-1936-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:159–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Rakheja R, Makis W, Skamene S, Nahal A, Brimo F, Azoulay L, et al. Correlating metabolic activity on 18F-FDG PET/CT with histopathologic characteristics of osseous and soft-tissue sarcomas: a retrospective review of 136 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:1409–16. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.7560.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar