Advertisement

Association of Tumor [18F]FDG Activity and Diffusion Restriction with Clinical Outcomes of Rhabdomyosarcomas

  • Arian Pourmehdi Lahiji
  • Tatianie Jackson
  • Hossein Nejadnik
  • Rie von Eyben
  • Daniel Rubin
  • Sheri L. Spunt
  • Andrew Quon
  • Heike Daldrup-Link
Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate whether the extent of restricted diffusion and 2-deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-d-glucose ([18F]FDG) uptake of pediatric rhabdomyosarcomas (RMS) on positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance (MR) images provides prognostic information.

Procedure

In a retrospective, IRB-approved study, we evaluated [18F]FDG PET/CT and diffusion-weighted (DW) MR imaging studies of 21 children and adolescents (age 1–20 years) with RMS of the head and neck. [18F]FDG PET and DW MR scans at the time of the initial tumor diagnosis were fused using MIM software. Quantitative measures of the tumor mass with restricted diffusion, [18F]FDG hypermetabolism, or both were dichotomized at the median and tested for significance using Gray’s test. Data were analyzed using a survival analysis and competing risk model with death as the competing risk.

Results

[18F]FDG PET/MR images demonstrated a mismatch between tumor areas with increased [18F]FDG uptake and restricted diffusion. The DWI, PET, and DWI + PET tumor volumes were dichotomized at their median values, 23.7, 16.4, and 9.5 cm3, respectively, and were used to estimate survival. DWI, PET, and DWI + PET overlap tumor volumes above the cutoff values were associated with tumor recurrence, regardless of post therapy COG stage (p = 0.007, p = 0.04, and p = 0.07, respectively).

Conclusion

The extent of restricted diffusion within RMS and overlap of hypermetabolism plus restricted diffusion predict unfavorable clinical outcomes.

Key words

Rhabdomyosarcoma [18F]FDG Diffusion-weighted MR PET/MR 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the members of Daldrup-Link lab for the valuable input and discussions regarding this project.

Funding information

This work was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, grant number R01 HD081123.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Institutional Review Board at our institution and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.”

References

  1. 1.
    Malempati S, Hawkins DS (2012) Rhabdomyosarcoma: review of the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) soft-tissue sarcoma committee experience and rationale for current COG studies. Pediatr Blood Cancer 59:5–10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ognjanovic S, Linabery AM, Charbonneau B, Ross JA (2009) Trends in childhood rhabdomyosarcoma incidence and survival in the United States, 1975-2005. Cancer 115:4218–4226CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodeberg DA, Stoner JA, Hayes-Jordan A, Kao SC, Wolden SL, Qualman SJ, Meyer WH, Hawkins DS (2009) Prognostic significance of tumor response at the end of therapy in group III rhabdomyosarcoma: a report from the children’s oncology group. J Clin Oncol 27:3705–3711CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kleis M, Daldrup-Link H, Matthay K, Goldsby R, Lu Y, Schuster T, Schreck C, Chu PW, Hawkins RA, Franc BL (2009) Diagnostic value of PET/CT for the staging and restaging of pediatric tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:23–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Voss SD (2011) Pediatric oncology and the future of oncological imaging. Pediatr Radiol 41(Suppl 1):S172–S185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lager JJ, Lyden ER, Anderson JR et al (2006) Pooled analysis of phase II window studies in children with contemporary high-risk metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma: a report from the soft tissue sarcoma committee of the children’s oncology group. J Clin Oncol 24:3415–3422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baum SH, Fruhwald M, Rahbar K, Wessling J, Schober O, Weckesser M (2011) Contribution of PET/CT to prediction of outcome in children and young adults with rhabdomyosarcoma. J Nucl Med 52:1535–1540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Franzius C, Bielack S, Flege S, Sciuk J, Jürgens H, Schober O (2002) Prognostic significance of 18F-FDG and 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate uptake in primary osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med 43:1012–1017PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brenner W, Conrad EU, Eary JF (2004) FDG PET imaging for grading and prediction of outcome in chondrosarcoma patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:189–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Padhani AR, Liu G, Mu-Koh D, Chenevert TL, Thoeny HC, Takahara T, Dzik-Jurasz A, Ross BD, van Cauteren M, Collins D, Hammoud DA, Rustin GJS, Taouli B, Choyke PL (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11:102–125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Afaq A, Andreou A, Koh D (2010) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for tumour response assessment: why, when and how? Cancer Imaging 10:S179–S188CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oldan JD, Turkington TG, Choudhury K, Chin BB (2015) Quantitative differences in [(18)F] NaF PET/CT: TOF versus non-TOF measurements. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 5:504–514PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferrari A, Miceli R, Meazza C, Casanova M, Favini F, Morosi C, Trecate G, Marchianò A, Luksch R, Cefalo G, Terenziani M, Spreafico F, Polastri D, Podda M, Catania S, Schiavello E, Giannatempo P, Gandola L, Massimino M, Mariani L (2010) Comparison of the prognostic value of assessing tumor diameter versus tumor volume at diagnosis or in response to initial chemotherapy in rhabdomyosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 28:1322–1328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ries LAG SM, Gurney JG, Linet M, et al. (2005) Cancer incidence and survival among children and adolescents. National Cancer Institute, SEER ProgramGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):122s–150sCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bakhshi S, Radhakrishnan V, Sharma P, Kumar R, Thulkar S, Vishnubhatla S, Dhawan D, Malhotra A (2012) Pediatric nonlymphoblastic non-Hodgkin lymphoma: baseline, interim, and posttreatment PET/CT versus contrast-enhanced CT for evaluation—a prospective study. Radiology 262:956–968CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Riad R, Omar W, Kotb M, Hafez M, Sidhom I, Zamzam M, Zaky I, Abdel-Dayem H (2010) Role of PET/CT in malignant pediatric lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:319–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bestic JM, Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW (2009) Pediatric FDG PET/CT: physiologic uptake, normal variants, and benign conditions [corrected]. Radiographics 29:1487–1500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uslu L, Donig J, Link M, Rosenberg J, Quon A, Daldrup-Link HE (2015) Value of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT for evaluation of pediatric malignancies. J Nucl Med 56:274–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim CK, Gupta NC, Chandramouli B, Alavi A (1994) Standardized uptake values of FDG: body surface area correction is preferable to body weight correction. J Nucl Med 35:164–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cuccarini V, Erbetta A, Farinotti M et al (2015) Advanced MRI may complement histological diagnosis of lower grade gliomas and help in predicting survival. J Neuro-Oncol 126:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwarzbach MH, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Willeke F et al (2000) Clinical value of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in soft tissue sarcomas. Ann Surg 231:380–386CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kilic-Eren M, Boylu T, Tabor V (2013) Targeting PI3K/Akt represses hypoxia inducible factor-1α activation and sensitizes rhabdomyosarcoma and Ewing’s sarcoma cells for apoptosis. Cancer Cell Int 13:36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gupta K, Pawaskar A, Basu S, Rajan MGR, Asopa RV, Arora B, Nair N, Banavali S (2011) Potential role of FDG PET imaging in predicting metastatic potential and assessment of therapeutic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. Clin Nucl Med 36:973–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Begent J, Sebire NJ, Levitt G et al (2011) F(18)-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/computerised tomography in Wilms' tumour: correlation with conventional imaging, pathology and immunohistochemistry. Eur J Cancer 47:389–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kurland BF, Muzi M, Peterson LM, Doot RK, Wangerin KA, Mankoff DA, Linden HM, Kinahan PE (2016) Multicenter clinical trials using 18F-FDG PET to measure early response to oncologic therapy: effects of injection-to-acquisition time variability on required sample size. J Nucl Med 57:226–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Antonica F, Asabella AN, Ferrari C et al (2014) Useful diagnostic biometabolic data obtained by PET/CT and MR fusion imaging using open source software. Hellenic. J Nucl Med 17(Suppl 1):50–55Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zaidi H, Montandon ML, Alavi A (2010) The clinical role of fusion imaging using PET, CT, and MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin 18:133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arian Pourmehdi Lahiji
    • 1
  • Tatianie Jackson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hossein Nejadnik
    • 1
  • Rie von Eyben
    • 3
  • Daniel Rubin
    • 1
    • 4
  • Sheri L. Spunt
    • 5
  • Andrew Quon
    • 6
  • Heike Daldrup-Link
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.The Department of Radiology and Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS)Stanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyBoston University Medical CenterBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical Data ScienceStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  5. 5.Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology/OncologyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  6. 6.Department of Nuclear MedicineStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations