Advertisement

PET and PET-CT in Soft Tissue Sarcoma

  • S. CeyssensEmail author
  • S. Stroobants
Chapter

Abstract

The main role of the current imaging modalities in general is to recognize patients with typically benign disease, in whom further invasive staging can be omitted, and select those patients with a suspected malignancy, who should be referred for biopsy. Following appropriate imaging assessment, biopsy of the mass completes the staging process. Since STS tend to be large and heterogeneous, with the risk of sampling error, 18F-FDG PET-CT can help to guide the biopsy toward the most aggressive zone.

The strength of 18F-FDG PET-CT in staging of a sarcoma patient lies in its ability to screen the entire patient and thus, in detecting metastases at unexpected sites, outside the standard field of view of CT and MRI and in the exclusion of disease in equivocal results on conventional imaging. Furthermore, 18F-FDG PET seems promising in treatment monitoring, with a good correlation between an early and significant decline in metabolic activity and response to therapy in different types of sarcoma. Additionally, 18F-FDG uptake is an independent predictor for overall and disease-free survival.

Although further studies are necessary, the use of 18F-FDG PET-CT seems promising in the detection of local recurrence of STS.

Keywords

Positron Emission Tomography Standard Uptake Value Giant Cell Tumor Epithelioid Sarcoma Myositis Ossificans 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoch G, Kanja J, Bauer S, Kuehl H, Renzing-Koehler K, Schuette J, Bockisch A, Debatin JF, Freudenberg LS (2004) Comparison of PET, CT, and dual-modality PET/CT imaging for monitoring of imatinib (STI571) therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nucl Med 45:357–365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baum SH, Frühwald 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(10):1535–1540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beiderwellen K, Geraldo L, Ruhlmann V, Heusch P, Gomez B, Nensa F, Umutlu L, Lauenstein TC (2015) Accuracy of [18F] FDG PET/MRI for the detection of liver metastases. PLoS One 10(9), e0137285CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canellos GP (1988) Residual mass in lymphoma may not be residual disease. J Clin Oncol 6:931–933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ceresoli GL, Chiti A, Zucali PA et al (2007) Assessment of tumor response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer Treat Rev 33:533–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, Macapinlac HA, Burgess MA, Patel SR, Chen LL, Podoloff DA, Benjamin RS (2007) Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol 25:1753–1759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dancheva Z, Bochev P, Chaushev B, Yordanova T, Klisarova A (2016) Dual-time point 18FDG-PET/CT imaging may be useful in assessing local recurrent disease in high grade bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 19(1):22–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Schepper AM, De Beuckeleer L, Vandevenne J, Somville J (2000) Magnetic resonance imaging of soft tissue tumors. Eur Radiol 10:213–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Delbeke D, Martin WH, Sandler MP, Chapman WC, Wright JK Jr, Pinson CW (1998) Evaluation of benign vs malignant hepatic lesions with positron emission tomography. Arch Surg 133:510–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Demetri GD, von Mehren M, Blanke CD et al (2002) Efficacy and safety of imatinib mesylate in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. N Engl J Med 347:472–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Domanski HA, Akerman M, Carlén B et al (2005) Core-needle biopsy performed by the cytopathologist: a technique to complement fine-needle aspiration of soft tissue and bone lesions. Cancer 105(4):229–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Donati OF, Hany TF, Reiner CS, von Schulthess GK, Marincek B, Seifert B, Weishaupt D (2010) Value of retrospective fusion of PET and MR images in detection of hepatic metastases: comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. J Nucl Med 51(5):692–699CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dwamena BA, Sonnad SS, Angobaldo JO, Wahl RL (1999) Metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: mediastinal staging in the 1990s--meta-analytic comparison of PET and CT. Radiology 213:530–536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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 29:1149–1154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eary JF, O'Sullivan F, O'Sullivan J, Conrad EU (2008) Spatial heterogeneity in sarcoma 18F-FDG uptake as a predictor of patient outcome. J Nucl Med 49:1973–1979CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, Rubinstein L, Shankar L, Dodd L, Kaplan R, Lacombe D, Verweij J (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group (2014) Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 25(3):iii21–iii26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evilevitch V, Weber WA, Tap WD et al (2008) Reduction of glucose metabolic activity is more accurate than change in size at predicting histopathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy in high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Cancer Res 14:715–720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fendler WP, Lehmann M, Todica A, Herrmann K, Knösel T, Angele MK, Dürr HR, Rauch J, Bartenstein P, Cyran CC, Hacker M, Lindner LH (2015) PET response criteria in solid tumors predicts progression-free survival and time to local or distant progression after chemotherapy with regional hyperthermia for soft-tissue sarcoma. J Nucl Med 56(4):530–537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fendler WP, Chalkidis RP, Ilhan H, Knösel T, Herrmann K, Issels RD, Bartenstein P, Cyran CC, Lindner LH, Hacker M (2015) Evaluation of several FDG PET parameters for prediction of soft tissue tumour grade at primary diagnosis and recurrence. Eur Radiol 25(8):2214–2221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferner RE, Lucas JD, O'Doherty MJ, Hughes RA, Smith MA, Cronin BF, Bingham J (2000) Evaluation of (18) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18) FDG PET) in the detection of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours arising from within plexiform neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis 1. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 68:353–357CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Folpe AL, Lyles RH, Sprouse JT (2000) (F-18) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a predictor of pathologic grade and other prognostic variables in bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Clin Cancer Res 6:1279–1287, Conrad EU 3rd, Eary JFPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fong Y, Coit DG, Woodruff JM, Brennan MF (1993) Lymph node metastasis from soft tissue sarcoma in adults. Analysis of data from a prospective database of 1772 sarcoma patients. Ann Surg 217:72–217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gaakeer HA, Albus-Lutter CE, Gortzak E, Zoetmulder FA (1988) Regional lymph node metastases in patients with soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities, what are the therapeutic consequences? Eur J Surg Oncol 14:151–156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garner HW, Kransdorf MJ, Bancroft LW, Peterson JJ, Berquist TH, Murphey MD (2009) Benign and malignant soft-tissue tumors: posttreatment MR imaging. Radiographics 29:119–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goffin J, Baral S, Tu D, Nomikos D, Seymour L (2005) Objective responses in patients with malignant melanoma or renal cell cancer in early clinical studies do not predict regulatory approval. Clin Cancer Res 11:5928–5934CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ioannidis JP, Lau J (2003) 18F-FDG PET for the diagnosis and grading of soft-tissue sarcoma: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med 44:717–724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jager PL, Hoekstra HJ, Leeuw J, van Der Graaf WT, de Vries EG, Piers D (2000) Routine bone scintigraphy in primary staging of soft tissue sarcoma; Is it worthwhile? Cancer 89:1726–1731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Joensuu H, Eriksson M, Sundby Hall K, Hartmann JT, Pink D, Schütte J, Ramadori G, Hohenberger P, Duyster J, Al-Batran SE, Schlemmer M, Bauer S, Wardelmann E, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Nilsson B, Sihto H, Monge OR, Bono P, Kallio R, Vehtari A, Leinonen M, Alvegård T, Reichardt P (2012) One vs three years of adjuvant imatinib for operable gastrointestinal stromal tumor: a randomized trial. JAMA 307(12):1265–1272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD (2000) Radiologic evaluation of soft-tissue masses: a current perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:575–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lewis JJ, Leung D, Casper ES, Woodruff J, Hajdu SI, Brennan MF (1999) Multifactorial analysis of long-term follow-up (more than 5 years) of primary extremity sarcoma. Arch Surg 134:190–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lodge MA, Lucas JD, Marsden PK, Cronin BF, O'Doherty MJ, Smith MA (1999) A PET study of 18FDG uptake in soft tissue masses. Eur J Nucl Med 26:22–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    London K, Stege C, Cross S, Onikul E, Graf N, Kaspers G, Dalla-Pozza L, Howman-Giles R (2012) 18F-FDG PET/CT compared to conventional imaging modalities in pediatric primary bone tumors. Pediatr Radiol 42(4):418–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lucas JD, O'Doherty MJ, Cronin BF, Marsden PK, Lodge MA, McKee PH, Smith MA (1999) Prospective evaluation of soft tissue masses and sarcomas using fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Br J Surg 86:550–556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lucas DR, Kshirsagar MP, Biermann JS, Hamre MR, Thomas DG, Schuetze SM, Baker LH (2008) Histologic alterations from neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma: clinicopathological correlation. Oncologist 13(4):451–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Malik E, Juweid MD, Bruce D, Cheson MD (2006) Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 354:496–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mayerhoefer ME, Breitenseher M, Amann G, Dominkus M (2008) Are signal intensity and homogeneity useful parameters for distinguishing between benign and malignant soft tissue masses on MR images?: objective evaluation by means of texture analysis. Magn Reson Imaging 26:91316–91322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Partovi S, Kohan AA, Zipp L, Faulhaber P, Kosmas C, Ros PR, Robbin MR (2014) Hybrid PET/MR imaging in two sarcoma patients - clinical benefits and implications for future trials. Int J Clin Exp Med 7(3):640–648PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pisters PW, Leung DH, Woodruff J, Shi W, Brennan MF (1996) Analysis of prognostic factors in 1041 patients with localized soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities. J Clin Oncol 14:1679–1689CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pisters PW, Pollock RE, Lewis VO, Yasko AW, Cormier JN, Respondek PM, Feig BW, Hunt KK, Lin PP, Zagars G, Wei C, Ballo MT (2007) Long-term results of prospective trial of surgery alone with selective use of radiation for patients with T1 extremity and trunk soft tissue sarcomas. Ann Surg 246:675–681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Porter GA, Cantor SB, Ahmad SA, Lenert JT, Ballo MT, Hunt KK, Feig BW, Patel SR, Benjamin RS, Pollock RE, Pisters PW (2002) Cost-effectiveness of staging computed tomography of the chest in patients with T2 soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer 94:197–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Quartuccio N, Treglia G, Salsano M, Mattoli MV, Muoio B, Piccardo A, Lopci E, Cistaro A (2013) The role of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in staging and restaging of patients with osteosarcoma. Radiol Oncol 47(2):97–102CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Quartuccio N, Fox J, Kuk D, Wexler LH, Baldari S, Cistaro A, Schöder H (2015) Pediatric bone sarcoma: diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT versus conventional imaging for initial staging and follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(1):153–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rakheja R, Makis W, Skamene S, Nahal A, Brimo F, Azoulay L, Assayag J, Turcotte R, Hickeson M (2012) Correlating metabolic activity on 18F-FDG PET/CT with histopathologic characteristics of osseous and soft-tissue sarcomas: a retrospective review of 136 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(6):1409–1416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Reiner CS, Stolzmann P, Husmann L, Burger IA, Hüllner MW, Schaefer NG, Schneider PM, von Schulthess GK, Veit-Haibach P (2014) Protocol requirements and diagnostic value of PET/MR imaging for liver metastasis detection. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41(4):649–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Roberge D, Vakilian S, Alabed YZ, Turcotte RE, Freeman CR, Hickeson M (2012) FDG PET/CT in initial staging of adult soft-tissue sarcoma. Sarcoma 2012:960194CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schuetze SM, Rubin BP, Vernon C et al (2005) Use of positron emission tomography in localized extremity soft tissue sarcoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 103:339–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sharma P, Khangembam BC, Suman KC, Singh H, Rastogi S, Khan SA, Bakhshi S, Thulkar S, Bal C, Malhotra A, Kumar R (2013) Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting recurrence in patients with primary skeletal Ewing sarcoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40(7):1036–1043CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P et al (2001) Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F] FDG) after first line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: is [18F] FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol 19:414–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stacchiotti S, Collini P, Messina A, Morosi C, Barisella M, Bertulli R, Piovesan C, Dileo P, Torri V, Gronchi A, Casali PG (2009) High-grade soft-tissue sarcomas: tumor response assessment--pilot study to assess the correlation between radiologic and pathologic response by using RECIST and choi criteria. Radiology 251(2):447–456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stefanovski PD, Bidoli E, De Paoli A et al (2002) Prognostic factors in soft tissue sarcomas: a study of 395 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 28:153–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Stroobants S, Goeminne J, Seegers M, Dimitrijevic S, Dupont P, Nuyts J, Martens M, van den Borne B, Cole P, Sciot R, Dumez H, Silberman S, Mortelmans L, van Oosterom A (2003) 18FDG-Positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinib mesylate (Glivec). Eur J Cancer 39:2012–2020CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ulaner GA, Magnan H, Healey JH, Weber WA, Meyers PA (2014) Is methylene diphosphonate bone scan necessary for initial staging of Ewing sarcoma if 18F-FDG PET/CT is performed? Am J Roentgenol 202(4):859–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Van den Abbeele AD, Badawi RD (2002) Use of positron emission tomography in oncology and its potential role to assess response to imatinib mesylate therapy in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Eur J Cancer 38:S60–S65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    van Oosterom AT, Judson I, Verweij J, Stroobants S, Donato Di Paola E, Dimitrijevic S, Martens M, Webb A, Sciot R, Van Glabbeke M, Silberman S, Nielsen OS (2001) European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Safety and efficacy of imatinib (STI571) in metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours: a phase I study. Lancet 358:1421–1423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vanel D, Shapeero LG, Tardivon A, Western A, Guinebretiere JM (1998) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with subtraction of aggressive soft tissue tumors after resection. Skeletal Radiol 27:505–510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Völker T, Denecke T, Steffen I, Misch D, Schönberger S, Plotkin M, Ruf J, Furth C, Stöver B, Hautzel H, Henze G, Amthauer H (2007) Positron emission tomography for staging of pediatric sarcoma patients: results of a prospective multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol 25:5435–5441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineAntwerp University HospitalEdegemBelgium

Personalised recommendations