Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 475–480 | Cite as

Response of osteogenic sarcoma to neoadjuvant therapy: evaluated by 18F-FDG-PET

  • Zhaoming Ye
  • Jiangjun Zhu
  • Mei Tian
  • Hong Zhang
  • Hongwei Zhan
  • Chunlei Zhao
  • Disheng Yang
  • Weixu Li
  • Nong Lin
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential role of F-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in assessing the chemotherapy response of osteosarcoma when compared with histologically assessed tumor necrosis.

Methods

Fifteen patients were examined with whole-body FDG-PET prior to and following neoadjuvant therapy. The maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) of tumor and tumor to background ratio (TBR) prior to and following chemotherapy was used for semiquantitative PET imaging analysis. The SUVmax of prechemotherapy and post-chemotherapy was recorded as SUV1 and SUV2. TBR1 and TBR2 represented prechemotherapy and post-chemotherapy TBR. TBR was calculated by drawing an identical region of interest over the tumor and the contralateral normal limb or pelvis. Tumor necrosis was classified according to Salzer-Kuntschik’s criteria.

Results

Eight patients with more than 90% tumor necrosis were classified as showing good responses and seven patients with less than 90% tumor necrosis as showing poor responses. SUV2/SUV1, TBR2/TBR1, and TBR2 were significantly correlated with the tumor necrosis degree (P < 0.01, P < 0.001, P < 0.001). TBR2/TBR1 were below 0.46 in all the patients with favorable responses, and higher than 0.49 in all the patients with unfavorable responses. However, it was difficult to distinguish good responses from poor responses by SUV2/SUV1.

Conclusions

FDG-PET is a promising tool to assess the chemotherapy response of osteosarcoma noninvasively. The TBR was better than SUVmax in evaluating the chemotherapy response in this study.

Keywords

Chemotherapy Osteosarcoma Necrosis FDG-PET 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Saeter G, Kloke O, Jelic S; ESMO Guidelines Task Force. ESMO minimum clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of osteosarcoma. Ann Oncol 2005;16Suppl 1:i71–i72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bielack S, Kempf-Bielack B, Delling G, Exner GU, Flege S, Helmke K, et al. Prognostic factors in high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremities or trunk: an analysis of 1,702 patients treated on neoadjuvant cooperative osteosarcoma study group protocols. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:776–790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eilber FC, Rosen G, Eckardt J, Forscher C, Nelson SD, Selch M, et al. Treatment-induced pathologic necrosis: a predictor of local recurrence and survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy for high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcomas. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3203–3209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruzzi JF, Truong M, Zinner R, Erasmus JJ, Sabloff B, Munden R. Short-term restaging of patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving chemotherapy. J Thorac Oncol 2006;1:425–429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwarz JD, Bader M, Jenicke L, Hemminger G, Janicke F, Avril N. Early prediction of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer using sequential 18F-FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1144–1150.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA, O’Doherty MJ, Timothy AR. FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2005;16:1514–1523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tian M, Zhang H, Nakasone Y, Mogi K, Endo K. Expression of Glut-1 and Glut-3 in untreated oral squamous cell carcinoma compared with FDG accumulation in a PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:5–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levine EA, Farmer MR, Clark P, Mishra G, Ho C, Geisinger KR. Predictive value of 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) in the identification of responders to chemoradiation therapy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2006;243:472–478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feldman F, Heertum RV, Saxena C, Parisien M. 18FDG-PET applications for cartilage neoplasms. Skeletal Radiol 2005;34:367–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Györke T, Zajic T, Lange A, Schafer O, Moser E, Mako E, et al. Impact of FDG PET for staging of Ewing sarcomas and primitive neuroectodermal tumours. Nucl Med Commun 2006;27:17–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kneisl JS, Patt JC, Johnson JC, Zuger JH. Is PET useful in detecting occult nonpulmonary metastases in pediatric bone sarcomas? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;450:101–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tateishi U, Yamaguchi U, Seki U, Terauchi T, Arai Y, Hasegawa T. Glut-1 expression and enhanced glucose metabolism are associated with tumour grade in bone and soft tissue [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose sarcomas: a prospective evaluation by positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:683–691.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brenner W, Conrad EU, Eary JF. FDG PET imaging for grading and prediction of outcome in chondrosarcoma patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:189–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang H, Yoshikawa K, Tamura K, Tomemori T, Sagou K, Tian M, et al. [(11)C] methionine positron emission tomography and survival in patients with bone and soft tissue sarcomas treated by carbon ion radiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:1764–1772.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA. A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop 1980;153:106–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salzer-Kuntschik M, Delling G, Beron G, Sigmund R. Morphological grades of regression in osteosarcoma after polychemotherapy-study COSS 80. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1983;106Suppl:21–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cullen JW, Jamroz BA, Stevens SL, Madsen W, Hinshaw I, Wilkins RM, et al. The value of serial arteriography in osteosarcoma: delivery of chemotherapy, determination of therapy duration, and prediction of necrosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:1107–1119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kunisada T, Ozaki T, Kawai A, Sugihara S, Taguchi K, Inoue H. Imaging assessment of the responses of osteosarcoma patients to preoperative chemotherapy:angiography compared with thallium-201 scintigraphy. Cancer 1999;86:949–956.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dyke JP, Panicek DM, Healey JH, Meyers PA, Huvos AG, Schwartz LH, et al. Osteogenic and Ewing sarcomas: estimation of necrotic fraction during Induction chemotherapy with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;228:271–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jones DN, McCowage GB, Sostman HD, Brizel DM, Layfield L, Charles HC, et al. Monitoring of neoadjuvant therapy response of soft-tissue and musculoskeletal sarcoma using fluorine-18-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1996;37:1438–1444.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abella E, Dicarli M, Ravindranath Y, Kottamasu S, Muzik O, Decamilo D, et al. Positron emission tomography [PET] scanning with 18-fluorodeoxyglcose[FDG] correlates with histological response in children with osteosarcoma [OS] and Ewing’s sarcoma [ES]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996;15:1457.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schulte M, Brecht-Krauss D, Werner M, Hartwig E, Sarkar MR, Keppler P, et al. Evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy response of osteogenic sarcoma using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1637–1643.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Franzius C, Sciuk J, Brinkschmidt C, Jurgens H, Schober O. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in primary bone tumors with F-18 FDG positron emission tomography compared with histologically assessed tumor necrosis. Clin Nucl Med 2000;25:874–881.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nair N, Ali A, Green AA, Lamonica G, Alibazoglu H, Alibazoglu B, et al. Response of osteosarcoma to chemotherapy. Evaluation with F-18 FDG-PET scans. Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3:79–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hawkins DS, Rajendran JG, Conrad EU III, Bruckner JD, Eary JF. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer 2002;94:3277–3284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ioannidis JP, Lau J. 18F-FDG PET for the diagnosis and grading of soft-tissue sarcoma: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med 2003;44:717–724.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hawkins DS, Schuteze SM, Butrynski JE, Rajendran JG, Vernon CB, Conrad EU III, et al. [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts outcome for Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8828–8834.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schuetze SM, Rubin BP, Vernon C, Hawkins DS, Bruckner JD, Conrad EU III, et al. Use of positron emission tomography in localized extremity soft tissue sarcoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 2005;103:339–348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Langen KJ, Braun U, Rota Kops E, Herzog H, Kuwert T, Nebeling B, et al. The influence of plasma glucose levels on fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in bronchial carcinomas. J Nucl Med 1993;34:355–359.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhaoming Ye
    • 1
  • Jiangjun Zhu
    • 1
  • Mei Tian
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Hong Zhang
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Hongwei Zhan
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Chunlei Zhao
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Disheng Yang
    • 1
  • Weixu Li
    • 1
  • Nong Lin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthopedicsThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouChina
  3. 3.Zhejiang University Medical PET CenterHangzhouChina
  4. 4.The Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular ImagingZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations