Advertisement

Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 22–31 | Cite as

Volume-based parameters on FDG PET may predict the proliferative potential of soft-tissue sarcomas

  • Tomoka Kitao
  • Tohru Shiga
  • Kenji Hirata
  • Mitsunori Sekizawa
  • Toshiki Takei
  • Katsushige Yamashiro
  • Nagara Tamaki
Original Article
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare types of tumors that have variable levels of tumor differentiation. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) has been established as an useful tool for STS patients, and the metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) are reported to be useful in various cancers. We compared the diagnostic value of four PET parameters (maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax], SUVmean, MTV, and TLG) from two acquisition timings for predicting the expression of the pathological marker of cell proliferation Ki-67, based on pathological investigation.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective study, we investigated 20 patients (59 ± 19 years old, 18–87 years old) with pathologically confirmed STS who underwent FDG PET before surgical intervention. The patients fasted ≥ 6 h before the intravenous injection of FDG. The whole body was scanned twice; at an early phase (61.5 ± 2.6 min) and at a delayed phase (118.0 ± 2.1 min) post-injection. The SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV, and TLG of the primary lesion were measured with a tumor boundary determined by SUV ≥ 2.0. Ki-67 was measured using MIB-1 immunohistochemistry. We used Pearson’s correlation coefficient to analyze the relationships between the PET parameters and Ki-67 expressions. The Kaplan–Meier analysis with the log-rank test was performed to compare overall survival between high-group and low-group at each of the four PET parameters and Ki-67 expression.

Results

All four PET parameters at each phase showed significant correlations with Ki-67. Among them, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was largest for TLG (r = 0.76 and 0.77 at the early and delayed phases, respectively), followed by MTV (0.70 and 0.72), SUVmax (r = 0.65 and 0.66), and SUVmean (r = 0.62 and r = 0.64). From early to delayed phases, the SUVmax and SUVmean both increased in all 20 patients, whereas the MTV and TLG increased in 13/20 (65%) and 16/20 (80%) patients, respectively. None of the %increases of the PET parameters were significantly correlated with Ki-67. The overall survival was shorter for high-SUVmax, high-SUVmean, high-TLG, and high-Ki-67 groups than the other groups, although the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

The SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV, and TLG acquired at both 1 and 2 h after injection showed significant correlations with Ki-67. Among them, correlation coefficient with Ki-67 expression was highest for TLG, although the best parameter should be determined in a larger population. The delayed-phase FDG PET was equally useful as that of early-phase to predict tumor aggressiveness in STS.

Keywords

Soft tissue sarcoma MTV TLG FDG Ki-67 PET 

Abbreviations

CT

Computed tomography

DRAMA

Dynamic row-action maximum likelihood algorithm

FDG

Fluorodeoxyglucose

FLT

Fluorothymidine

FNCLCC

Federation National des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer

FOV

Field of view

H&E

Hematoxylin and eosin

MET

Methionine

MTV

Metabolic tumor volume

OS

Overall survival

PET

Positron emission tomography

RAMLA

Row-action maximum likelihood algorithm

STS

Soft-tissue sarcomas

SUV

Standardized uptake value

SUVmax

Maximum of SUV

SUVmean

Mean of SUV

TLG

Total lesion glycolysis

US

Ultrasound

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Eriko Suzuki for her great support in the preparation of this manuscript. We would also like to thank the members of the department of Nuclear Medicine, Hokkaido University for their hospitality during the research.

Author contributions

Design of the study: TK, KH. Investigation: TK, TS, KH, NT. Formal analysis: TK, KY. Software: KH. Supervision: TS, MS, TT, KY, NT. Writing—original draft: TK, KH. Writing—review & editing: TK, TS, KH, MS, TT, KY, NT.

Funding

Funding information is not applicable.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethics approval and informed consent

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of Hokkaido Cancer Center. The informed consent was waived from individual participants in the retrospective study according to the institutional ethics committee of Hokkaido Cancer Center (#27-43). Patient records/information was anonymized and de-identified prior to analysis.

Research involving human participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

12149_2018_1298_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (49 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 48 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Ha SC, Oh JS, Roh J-L, Moon H, Kim JS, Cho K-J, et al. Pretreatment tumor SUVmax predicts disease-specific and overall survival in patients with head and neck soft tissue sarcoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu C-YC-L, Yen C-C, Chen W-M, Chen T-H, Chen PC-H, Wu H-TH, et al. Soft tissue sarcoma of extremities: the prognostic significance of adequate surgical margins in primary operation and reoperation after recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2102–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Been LB, Suurmeijer AJH, Elsinga PH, Jager PL, van Ginkel RJ, Hoekstra HJ. 18F-Fluorodeoxythymidine PET for evaluating the response to hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion for locally advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:367–72.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghigi G, Micera R, Maffione AM, Castellucci P, Cammelli S, Ammendolia I, et al. 11C-methione vs. 18F-FDG PET in soft tissue sarcoma patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy: preliminary results. In Vivo. 2009;23(1):105–10.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kao CH, Lin SC, Hsieh TC, Yen KY, Yang SN, Wang YC, et al. Use of pretreatment metabolic tumour volumes to predict the outcome of pharyngeal cancer treated by definitive radiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lim R, Eaton A, Lee NY, Setton J, Ohri N, Rao S, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis predict outcome in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1506–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee JW, Cho A, Lee JH, Yun M, Lee JD, Kim YT, et al. The role of metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis on 18F-FDG PET/CT in the prognosis of epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1898–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Im H-J, Pak K, Cheon GJ, Kang KW, Kim S-J, Kim I-J, et al. Prognostic value of volumetric parameters of 18F-FDG PET in non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;42:241–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Byun BH, Kong C-B, Park J, Seo Y, Lim I, Choi CW, et al. Initial metabolic tumor volume measured by 18F-FDG PET/CT can predict the outcome of osteosarcoma of the extremities. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1725–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guillou L, Coindre JM, Bonichon F, Nguyen BB, Terrier P, Collin F, et al. Comparative study of the National Cancer Institute and French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group grading systems in a population of 410 adult patients with soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:350–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pisters PW, Leung DH, Woodruff J, Shi W, Brennan MF. Analysis of prognostic factors in 1041 patients with localized soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1679–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neuville A, Chibon F, Coindre J-M. Grading of soft tissue sarcomas: from histological to molecular assessment. Pathology. 2014;46:113–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hasegawa T, Yokoyama R, Lee YH, Shimoda T, Beppu Y, Hirohashi S, et al. Prognostic relevance of a histological grading system using MIB-1 for adult soft-tissue sarcoma. Oncology. 2000;58:66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:1409–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walter F, Federman N, Apichairuk W, Nelson S, Phelps ME, Allen-Auerbach M, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake of bone and soft tissue sarcomas in pediatric patients. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2011;28:579–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yamamoto Y, Nishiyama Y, Ishikawa S, Nakano J, Chang SS, Bandoh S, et al. Correlation of 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG uptake on PET with Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1610–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buck AK, Halter G, Schirrmeister H, Kotzerke J, Wurziger I, Glatting G, et al. Imaging proliferation in lung tumors with PET: 18F-FLT versus 18F-FDG. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1426–31.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J, Schelling M, Weber W, Jänicke F, et al. Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18F-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:9–16.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tanaka E, Kudo H. Subset-dependent relaxation in block-iterative algorithms for image reconstruction in emission tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:1405–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hirata K, Kobayashi K, Wong KP, Manabe O, Surmak A, Tamaki N, et al. A semi-automated technique determining the liver standardized uptake value reference for tumor delineation in FDG PET-CT. PLoS One. 2014;9:e105682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vander Heiden MG, Cantley LC, Thompson CB. Understanding the Warburg effect: the metabolic requirements of cell proliferation. Science. 2009;324:1029–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Watanabe R, Tomita N, Takeuchi K, Sakata S, Tateishi U, Tanaka M, et al. SUVmax in FDG-PET at the biopsy site correlates with the proliferation potential of tumor cells in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2010;51:279–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K, Zhang H, Simon CA, Kampalath R, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu J, Dong M, Sun X, Li W, Xing L, Yu J. Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in surgical non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0146195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Satoh Y, Nambu A, Ichikawa T, Onishi H. Whole-body total lesion glycolysis measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography as a prognostic variable in metastatic breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim JW, Oh JS, Roh J-L, Kim JS, Choi S-H, Nam SY, et al. Prognostic significance of standardized uptake value and metabolic tumour volume on 18F-FDG PET/CT in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1353–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ryu IS, Kim JS, Roh J-L, Lee JH, Cho K-J, Choi S-H, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis measured by 18F-FDG PET/CT in salivary gland carcinomas. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1032–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Park SY, Cho A, Yu WS, Lee CY, Lee JG, Kim DJ, et al. Prognostic value of total lesion glycolysis by 18F-FDG PET/CT in surgically resected stage IA non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:45–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kitao T, Hirata K, Shima K, Hayashi T, Sekizawa M, Takei T, et al. Reproducibility and uptake time dependency of volume-based parameters on FDG-PET for lung cancer. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu H, Chen P, Wroblewski K, Hou P, Zhang C-P, Jiang Y, et al. Consistency of metabolic tumor volume of non-small-cell lung cancer primary tumor measured using 18F-FDG PET/CT at two different tracer uptake times. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37:50–6.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:122S–50S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Houseni M, Chamroonrat W, Zhuang J, Gopal R, Alavi A, Zhuang H. Prognostic implication of dual-phase PET in adenocarcinoma of the lung. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:535–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen HHW, Lee B-F, Su W-C, Lai Y-H, Chen H-Y, Guo H-R, et al. The increment in standardized uptake value determined using dual-phase 18F-FDG PET is a promising prognostic factor in non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1478–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomoka Kitao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tohru Shiga
    • 2
  • Kenji Hirata
    • 2
  • Mitsunori Sekizawa
    • 1
  • Toshiki Takei
    • 2
    • 3
  • Katsushige Yamashiro
    • 4
  • Nagara Tamaki
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Radiology DepartmentNational Hospital Organization Hokkaido Cancer CenterSapporoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Graduate School of MedicineHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic RadiologySapporo City General HospitalSapporoJapan
  4. 4.Department of PathologyHokkaido Cancer CenterSapporoJapan
  5. 5.Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medical ScienceKyoto Prefectural University of MedicineKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations