Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)


PET imaging with Fluorine-18 2-Fluoro-2-Deoxyglucose or FDG PET can be quite useful for both primary bone tumors and soft tissue sarcomas. There are major indications for PET imaging for malignant processes including screening, diagnosis, staging, restaging, and monitoring response to therapy (Bestic et al. (Radiographics 29(5):1487–1500, 2009; Piperkova et al. Clin Nuclear Med 34(3):146–150, 2009). FDG PET has a limited role in the diagnosis of musculoskeletal tumors and has no role in screening for such lesions. PET has however proven quite efficacious for staging and restaging of musculoskeletal tumors (Bestic et al. Radiographics 29(5):1487–1500, 2009; Piperkova et al. Clin Nuclear Med 34(3):146–150, 2009). In addition PET can be useful for evaluating response to therapy of musculoskeletal tumors (Benz et al. Clin Cancer Res 15(8):2856–2863, 2009; Iagaru et al. Clin Nuclear Med 33(1):8–13, 2008). Most musculoskeletal lesions are sufficiently glucose-avid for FDG PET to reliably depict distant tumor involvement, local spread or recurrence (Charest et al. Euro J Null Med Mol Imaging 36:1944–1951, 2009). This chapter will examine the current utility and applications of FDG PET imaging for evaluation of musculoskeletal neoplasms.


Positron Emission Tomography Soft Tissue Sarcoma Positron Emission Tomography Imaging Bone Scintigraphy Fibrous Dysplasia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, Takagishi K, Ishijima H, Oya N, Sato N, Inoue T, Endo K (2001) FDG PET of primary benign and malignant bone tumors: standardized uptake value in 52 lesions. Radiology 219:774–777PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastiaannet E, Groen H, Jager PL, Cobben DC, van der Graff WT, Vaalburg W, Hoekstra HJ (2004) 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 30:83–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benz MR, Czernin J, Allen-Aurbach MS, Tap WD, Dry SM, Elashoff D, Chow K, Evilevitch V, Eckardt JJ, Phelps ME (2009) FDG PET/CT imaging predicts histopathologic treatment responses after the initial cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Cancer Res 15:2856–2863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bestic JM, Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW (2009) Use of FDG PET in staging, restaging, and assessment of therapy response in Ewing sarcoma. Radiographics. Sep–Oct 29:1487–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bredella MA, Caputo GR, Steinbach LS (2002) Value of FDG positron emission tomography in conjunction with MR imaging for evaluating therapy response in patients with musculoskeletal sarcomas. AJR 179:1145–1150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 31:189–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bury T, Bareto A, Daenen F, Barthelemy N, Ghaye B, Rigo P (1998) Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the detection of bone metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 25:1244–1247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charest M, Hickeson M, Lisbona R, Novales-Diaz JA, Derbekyan V, Turcotte RE (2009) FDG PET/CT imaging in primary osseous and soft tissue sarcomas: a retrospective review of 212 cases. Euro J Null Med Mol Imaging 36:1944–1951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook GJ, Houston S, Rubens R, Maisey MN, Fogelman I (1998) Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by (18)FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. J Clin Oncol 16:3375–3379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Costelloe CM, Macapinlac HA, Madewell JE, Fitzgold NE, Mawlawi OR, Rohren EM, Raymond AK, Lewis VO, Anderson PM, Bassett RL, Harrell RK, Marom EM (2009) 18F-FDG PET/CT as an indicator of progression-free and overall survival in osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med 50:340–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM, Laukamp D, Sciuk J, Jurgens H, Schober O, Rummeny EJ (2001) Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. AJR 177:229–236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Eary JF, O’Sullivan F, Powitan Y, Chandhury KR, Vernon C, Bruckner JD, Conrad EU (2002) Sarcoma tumor FDG uptake measured by PET and patient outcome: a retrospective analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29:1149–1154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. El-Zeftawy H, Heiba SI, Jana S, Rosen G, Salem S, Santiago JF, Abdel-Dayem HM (2001) Role of repeated F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in management of patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 16:37–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feldman F, Van Heertum R, Saxena C (2006) 18-Fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography evaluation of benign versus malignant osteochondromas: preliminary observations. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:858–864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feldman F, Van Heertum R, Saxena C, Parisien M (2005) 18-FDG-PET applications for cartilage neoplasms. Skeletal Radiol 34:367–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franzius C, Bielack S, Flege S, Sciuk J, Jurgens H, Schober O (2002a) Prognostic significance of 18F-FDG and 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate uptake in primary osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med 43:1012–1017PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Franzius C, Daldrup-Link HE, Wagner-Bohn A, Sciuk J, Heindel WL, Jurgens H, Schober O (2002b) FDG-PET for detection of recurrences from malignant primary bone tumors: comparison with conventional imaging. Ann Oncol 13:157–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fogelman I, Cook G, Israel O, Van der Wall H (2005) Positron emission tomography and bone metastases. Semin Nucl Med 35:135–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodin GS, Shulkin BL, Kaufman RA, McCarville MB (2006) PET/CT characterization of fibroosseous defects in children:18F-FDG uptake can mimic metastatic disease. AJR 187:1124–1128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hawkins DS, Rajendran JG, Conrad III EU, Bruckner JD, Eary JF (2002a) Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. Am Cancer Soc 94:3277–3284Google Scholar
  21. Hawkins DS, Rajendran JG, Conrad III EU, Bruckner JD, Eary JF (2002b) Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcoma by [f-18]-fluorodeoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer 94:3277–3284Google Scholar
  22. Heike ED, Christiane F, Link TM, Laukamp D, Sciuk J, Jurgens H et al (2001) Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. Am J Roentgenol 177:229–236Google Scholar
  23. Heusner T, Golitz P, Hamami M, Eberhardt W, Stefan E, Forsting M, Bockisch A, Antoch G (2009) “One-stop-shop” staging: should we prefer FDG PET/CT or MRI for the detection of bone metastases? Eur J Radiol. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.10.031 Google Scholar
  24. Ho YY (2005) Review of non-positron emission tomography functional imaging or primary musculoskeletal tumours: beyond the humble bone scan. Austral Radiol 49:445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iagaru A, Masamed R, Chawla SP, Menendez LR, Fedenko A, Conti PS (2008) F-18 FDG PET and PET/CT Evaluation of response to chemotherapy in bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Nuclear Med 33:8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jadvar H, Gamie S, Romanna L, Conti PS (2004) Musculoskeletal system. Semin Nucl Med 34:254–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klaeser B, Mueller MD, Schmid RA, Guevara C, Krause T, Wiskerchen J (2009) PET-CT-guided interventions in the management of FDG-positive lesions in patients suffering from solid malignancies: initial experiences. Eur Radiol 19:1780–1785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lisle JW, Eary JF, O’Sullivan J, Conrad EU (2009) Risk assessment based on FDG-PET imaging in patients with synovial sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:1605–1611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malhotra P, Berman CG (2002) Evaluation of bone metastases in lung cancer. Imag Oncol 9:254–260Google Scholar
  30. McCarville MB, Christe R, Daw NC, Spunt SL, Kaste SC (2005) PET/CT in the evaluation of childhood sarcomas. AJR 184:1293–1304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Moog F, Kotzerke J, Reske SN (1999) FDG PET can replace bone scintigraphy in primary staging of malignant lymphoma. J Nucl Med 40:1407–1413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Sullivan PJ, Rohren EM, Madewell JE (2008) Positron emission tomography-CT imaging in guiding musculoskeletal biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am 46:475–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peterson JJ (2007) F-18 FDG-PET for detection of osseous metastatic disease and staging, restaging, and monitoring response to therapy of musculoskeletal tumors. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 11:246–260Google Scholar
  34. Peterson JJ, Kransdorf MJ, O’Connor MI (2003) Diagnosis of occult bone metastases: positron emission tomography. Clin Orthop Relat Res 415S:S120–S128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Piperkova E, Mikhaeil M, Mouasavi A, Libes R, Viejo-Rullan LH, Rosen G, Abdel-Dayem H (2009) Impact of PET and CT in PET/CT studies for staging and evaluating treatment response in bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Nuclear Med 34:146–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rybak LD, Rosenthal DI (2001) Radiological imaging for the diagnosis of bone metastases. J Nucl Med 45:53–64Google Scholar
  37. Schirrmeister H, Bommer M, Buck AK, Muller S, Messer P, Bunjes D, Mottaghy FM, Krause BJ, Neumaier B, Döhner H, Möller P, Reske SN (2002) Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med 29:361–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suzuki H, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, Yanagawa T, Suzuki R, Takagishi K (2004) Positron emission tomography imaging of musculoskeletal tumors in the shoulder girdle. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13:635–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Volker T, Denecke T, Steffen I, Misch D, Schonberger S, Plotkin M, Ruf J, Furth C, Stover B, Hautzel G, Henze G, Amthauer H (2007) Positron emission tomography for staging of pediatric sarcoma patients: results of a prospective multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol 25:5435–5441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang SN, Liang JA, Lin FJ, Kao CH, Lin CC, Lee CC (2002) Comparing whole body 18F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate bone scan to detect bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 128:325–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMayo ClinicJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations