Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PET evaluation of fatty tumors in the extremity: Possibility of using the standardized uptake value (SUV) to differentiate benign tumors from liposarcoma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The relative utility of various preoperative diagnostic imaging modalities, including PET (utilizing FDG and FMT), CT, and MR imaging, for evaluation of lipoma and liposarcoma, especially well-differentiated liposarcoma, was investigated.

Methods

Imaging findings in 32 patients with histopathologically documented lipoma, including one with fibrolipoma and one with angiolipoma, and 25 patients with liposarcomas whose subtypes included 10 well-differentiated, 10 myxoid, and 5 other types were reviewed retrospectively. Pre-operative imaging included FDG-PET (n = 44), FMT-PET (n = 21), CT (n = 25), and MR imaging (n = 53).

Results

Statistically significant imaging features of MR images favoring a diagnosis of liposarcoma involved lesions containing less than 75% fat (p < 0.001) as well as the presence of septa (p < 0.001). As compared with well-differentiated liposarcoma, benign lesions were differentiated significantly only by the presence of septa (p < 0.001), which also provided significant differentiation on CT (p < 0.05). The mean SUVs for malignant tumors were significantly higher than those for benign lesions in both FDG- and FMT-PET analyses (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0011, respectively). By using a cut-off value for FDG- and FMT-PET set at 0.81 and 1.0 respectively, which provided the highest accuracy, benign lesions were differentiated significantly from liposarcomas (p < 0.001, and p < 0.02). Furthermore, benign tumors and the three subtypes of liposarcoma were divided significantly into four biological grades by FDG- and FMT-accumulation rates (rho = 0.793, p < 0.0001; and rho = 0.745, p = 0.0009, respectively). A cut-off value of 0.81 for FDG-PET provided significant differentiation between benign lesions and well-differentiated liposarcoma (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The presence of septa on MR images differentiated lipomas from liposarcoma, even well-differentiated type. PET analysis, especially FDG-PET, quantitatively provided not only the differentiation but also the metabolic separation among subtypes of liposarcoma. Interpretation of the visual diagnostic modalities requires extensive experience and carries a risk of ignoring a critical portion of malignancy. PET metabolic imaging may be an objective and useful modality for evaluating adipose tissue tumors preoperatively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Enzinger FM, Weiss SW. Benign lipomatous tumors. In: Enzinger FM, Weiss SW (eds).Soft tissue tumors. St. Louis; Mosby, 1995: 381–430.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Weiss SW. Lipomatous tumors. In: Weiss SW, Brooks JSJ (eds).Soft tissue tumors. Baltimore; Williams & Wilkins, 1996:207–251.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Enzinger FM, Weiss SW. Liposarcoma. In: Enzinger FM, Weiss SW (eds).Soft tissue tumors. St. Louis; Mosby, 1995: 431–466.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hashimoto H, Enjoji M. Liposarcoma: a clinicopathologic subtyping of 52 cases.Acta Pathol Jpn 1982; 32:933–939.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kransdorf MJ, Bancroft LW, Peterson JJ, Murphey MD, Foster WC, Temple HT. Imaging of fatty tumors: Distinction of lipoma and well-differentiated liposarcoma.Radiology 2002; 224:99–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Adler LP, Blair HF, Makley JT, Williams RP, Joyce MJ, Leisure G, et al. Noninvasive grading of musculoskeletal tumors using PET.J Nucl Med 1991; 32:1508–1512.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kern KA, Brunetti A, Norton JA, Chang AE, Malawer M, Lack E, et al. Metabolic imaging of human extremity musculoskeletal tumors by PET.J Nucl Med 1988; 29:181–186.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nieweg OE, Pruim J, van Ginkel RJ, Hoekstra HJ, Paans AMJ, Molenaar WM, et al. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging of soft-tissue sarcoma.J Nucl Med 1996; 37:257–261.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Griffeth LK, Dehdashti F, McGuire AH, McGuire DJ, Perry D, Moerlein SM, et al. PET evaluation of soft-tissue masses with fluorine-18 fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose.Radiology 1992; 182:185–194.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, Yanagawa T, Aoki J, Tokunaga M, Inoue T, et al. Glucose metabolic analysis of musculoskeletal tumors using Fluorine-18-FDG PET as an aid to preoperative planning.J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2000; 82-B:760–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kole AC, Nieweg OE, Hoekstra HJ, van Horn JR, Koops HS, Vaalburg W. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose assessment of glucose metabolism in bone tumors.J Nucl Med 1998; 39:810–815.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Watanabe H, Inoue T, Shinozaki T, Yanagawa T, Oriuchi N, Ahmed AR, et al. PET imaging of musculoskeletal tumors with F-18 alpha-methyltyrosine: Comparison with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET.Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 27:1509–1517.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ahmed AR, Watanabe H, Aoki J, Shinozaki T, Takagishi K. Schwannoma of the extremities: The role ofPET in the preoperative planning.Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28:1541–1551.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Yanagawa T, Watanabe H, Inoue T, Ahmed AR, Tomiyoshi K, Shinozaki T, et al. Carbon-11 choline PET in musculoskeletal tumors: Comparison with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET.J Comput Assoc Tomograph 2003; 27:175–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hatayama K, Watanabe H, Ahmed AR, Yanagawa T, Shinozaki T, Oriuchi N, et al. Evaluation of hemangioma by PET: A role in multi-modality approach.J Comput Assoc Tomograph 2003; 27:70–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Einarsdottir H, Soderlund V, Larsson O, Mandahl N, Bauer HC. 110 subfascial lipomatous tumors. MR and CT findings versus histopathological diagnosis and cytogenetic analysis.Acta Radiol 1999; 40:603–609.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Radiology 1982; 143:29–36.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiving operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.Radiology 1983; 148:839–843.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jelinek JS, Kransdorf MJ, Shmookler BM, Aboulafia AJ, Malawer MM. Liposarcoma of the extremities: MR and CT findings in histologic subtypes.Radiology 1993; 186:455–459.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Arkun R, Memis A, Akalin T, Ustun EE, Sabah D, Kandiloglu G. Liposarcoma of soft tissue: MRI findings with pathologic correlation.Skeletal Radiol 1997; 26:167–172.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Munk PL, Lee MJ, Janzen DL, Connell DG, Logan PM, Poon PY, et al. Lipoma and Liposarcoma: Evaluation Using CT and MR imaging.Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169:589–594.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hosono M, Kobayashi H, Fujimoto R, Kotowa Y, Tsuboyama T, Matsusue Y, et al. Septum-like structure in lipoma and liposarcoma: MR imaging and pathologic correlation.Skeletal Radiol 1997; 26:150–154.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Griffeth LK, Fusselman MJ, Trask DD, McGuire AH, et al. Benign versus malignant intraosseous lesions: discrimination by means of PET with 2-fF-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose.Radiology 1996; 200:243–247.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, Tokunaga M, Inoue T, Endo K. FDG-PET in differential diagnosis and grading of chondrosarcomas.J Comput Assoc Tomograph 1999; 23:603–608.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hatano H, Ogose A, Hotta T, Kawashima H, Sugita T, Sasamoto R, et al. Treatment of myxoid liposarcoma by marginal or intralesional resection combined with radiotherapy.Anticancer Res 2003; 23:3045–3049.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Barile A, Zugaro L, Catalucci A, Caulo M, Di Cesare E, Splendiani A, et al. Soft tissue liposarcoma: histological subtypes, MRI and CT findings.Radiol Med 2002; 104:140–149.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, JAPAN

    Ryoko Suzuki, Takashi Yanagawa, Junko Sato, Tetsuya Shinozaki, Hideki Suzuki & Kenji Takagishi

  2. Department of Physical Therapy, Gunma University School of Health Science, 3-39-22 Showa, 371-8511, Maebashi, Gunma, JAPAN

    Hideomi Watanabe

  3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, JAPAN

    Keigo Endo

Authors
  1. Ryoko Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takashi Yanagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Junko Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tetsuya Shinozaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hideki Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kenji Takagishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hideomi Watanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Keigo Endo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hideomi Watanabe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suzuki, R., Yanagawa, T., Sato, J. et al. PET evaluation of fatty tumors in the extremity: Possibility of using the standardized uptake value (SUV) to differentiate benign tumors from liposarcoma. Ann Nucl Med 19, 661–670 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02985114

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02985114

Key words

Search

Navigation