Prediction model of chemotherapy response in osteosarcoma by 18F-FDG PET and MRI.

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine (Impact Factor: 5.56). 08/2009; 50(9):1435-40. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.063602
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a significant prognostic factor for osteosarcoma; however, this information can be determined only after surgical resection. If we could predict histologic response before surgery, it might be helpful for the planning of surgeries and tailoring of treatment. We evaluated the usefulness of (18)F-FDG PET for this purpose.
A total of 70 consecutive patients with a high-grade osteosarcoma treated at our institute were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent (18)F-FDG PET and MRI before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We analyzed the predictive values of 5 parameters, namely, maximum standardized uptake values (SUVs), before and after (SUV2) chemotherapy, SUV change ratio, tumor volume change ratio, and metabolic volume change ratio (MVCR) in terms of their abilities to discriminate responders from nonresponders.
Patients with an SUV2 of less than or equal to 2 showed a good histologic response, and patients with an SUV2 of greater than 5 showed a poor histologic response. The histologic response of a patient with an intermediate SUV2 (2 < SUV2 </= 5) was found to be predictable using MVCR. A patient with an MVCR of less than 0.65 is likely to be a good responder, whereas a patient with an MVCR of greater than or equal to 0.65 is likely to be a poor responder. According to our model, the predictive values for good responders and poor responders were 97% (31/32) and 95% (36/38), respectively.
We found that combined information on (18)F-FDG PET and MRI scans, acquired before and after chemotherapy, could be used to predict histologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in osteosarcoma.


Available from: Gi Jeong Cheon, May 04, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE. Numerous primary bone tumors are encountered on (18)F-FDG PET/CT, and many are FDG avid. The degree of FDG uptake in bone tumors does not necessarily reflect malignant potential. In conjunction with radiographs, evaluation of morphologic characteristics on the CT portion of PET/CT scans is important for characterization of the lesions. FDG PET/CT has been found to be useful for staging and has also been found to reflect prognosis in some primary bone malignancies. The purpose of this article is to familiarize the reader with topics regarding FDG PET/CT and both malignant and benign primary bone tumors. CONCLUSION. FDG uptake alone is not adequate for characterizing primary bone tumors, and morphologic evaluation is an important factor in the interpretation of PET/CT scans. After diagnosis, FDG avidity and morphologic features can play an important role in staging and determining response to therapy. On completion of this article, readers should have an improved ability to evaluate the FDG uptake and CT morphologic features of malignant and benign primary bone tumors. Readers should also have a better understanding of the potential role of FDG PET/CT in the management of patients with osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma.
    American Journal of Roentgenology 06/2014; 202(6):W521-31. DOI:10.2214/AJR.13.11833 · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to investigate positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and its applications for the diagnosis and treatment of bone tumors. The advantages and disadvantages of PET/CT were also evaluated and compared with other imaging methods and the prospects of PET/CT were discussed. The PubMed, Medline, Elsevier, Wanfang and China International Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for studies published between 1995 and 2013, using the terms 'PET/CT', 'positron emission tomography', 'bone tumor', 'osteosarcoma', 'giant cell bone tumor' and 'Ewing sarcoma'. All the relevant information was extracted and analyzed. A total of 73 studies were selected for the final analysis. The extracted information indicated that at present, PET/CT is the imaging method that exhibits the highest sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Although difficulties and problems remain to be solved, PET/CT is a promising non-invasive method for the diagnostic evaluation of and clinical guidance for bone tumors.
    Oncology letters 02/2015; 9(2):522-526. DOI:10.3892/ol.2014.2728 · 0.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective According to the current treatment protocol of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study, it is mandatory to determine the histological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment before surgical removal of the tumor, particularly if a limb salvage procedure is planned. The aim of this systematic, retrospective study was to evaluate the ability of 2-(18F) fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography to predict chemotherapy response of osteosarcoma and to identify a simple promising method for noninvasive evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in osteosarcoma.Methods The PubMed database was searched to identify and analyze relevant published reports. In particular, correlations between tumor-to-background ratio (TBR), standard uptake value (SUV) and histological response to chemotherapy were assessed.ResultsIt was found that good responses are achieved in patients with TBR after chemotherapy (TBR2)/TBR before chemotherapy (TBR1) < 0.470 (positive predictive value [PPV] = 92.31%, negative predictive value [NPV] = 82.76%, sensitivity [S] = 87.80%, specificity [SP] = 88.89%), whereas poor responses occur in patients with SUV after chemotherapy/before chemotherapy (SUV2/SUV1) > 0.396 (PPV = 73.68%, NPV = 73.33%, S = 63.64%, SP = 81.48%).Conclusion Changes in TBR are better predictors of chemotherapy response than SUV in osteosarcoma patients. Therefore, we believe that choice of surgical strategy is optimally based on changes in TBR.
    Orthopaedic Surgery 05/2014; 6(2). DOI:10.1111/os.12102