Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of several FDG PET parameters for prediction of soft tissue tumour grade at primary diagnosis and recurrence

  • Nuclear Medicine
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

Objectives

This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of SUV-based parameters derived from [18 F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in order to optimize non-invasive prediction of soft tissue tumour (STT) grade.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-nine lesions from 123 patients who underwent FDG-PET for primary staging (n = 79) or assessment of recurrence (n = 44) of STT were analyzed retrospectively. Histopathology was the reference standard for tumour grading. Absolute values and tumour-to-liver ratios of several standardized uptake value (SUV) parameters were correlated with tumour grading.

Results

At primary diagnosis SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmax/SUVliver and SUVpeak/SUVliver showed good correlation with tumour grade. SUVpeak (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic, AUC-ROC: 0.82) and SUVpeak/SUVliver (AUC-ROC: 0.82) separated best between low grade (WHO intermediate, grade 1 sarcoma, and low risk gastrointestinal stromal tumours, GISTs) and high grade (grade 2/3 sarcoma and intermediate/high risk GISTs) lesions: optimal threshold for SUVpeak/SUVliver was 2.4, which resulted in a sensitivity of 79 % and a specificity of 81 %. At disease recurrence, the AUC-ROC was <0.75 for each parameter.

Conclusions

A tumour SUVpeak of at least 2.4 fold mean liver uptake predicts high grade histopathology with good diagnostic accuracy at primary staging. At disease recurrence, FDG-PET does not reliably separate high and low grade lesions.

Key Points

• Several SUV parameters accurately predict soft tissue sarcoma grade at primary diagnosis.

• Tumour-to-liver ratios are of comparable value to absolute SUV parameters.

• SUV peak /SUV liver >2.4 had 79 % sensitivity and 81 % specificity for high grade lesions.

• At recurrence, FDG PET does not reliably indicate high grade sarcomas.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Myhre-Jensen O, Kaae S, Madsen EH, Sneppen O (1983) Histopathological grading in soft-tissue tumours. Relation to survival in 261 surgically treated patients. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand A 91(2):145–150

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Trojani M, Contesso G, Coindre JM et al (1984) Soft-tissue sarcomas of adults; study of pathological prognostic variables and definition of a histopathological grading system. Int J Cancer 33(1):37–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van Unnik JA, Coindre JM, Contesso C et al (1993) Grading of soft tissue sarcomas: experience of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Eur J Cancer 29A(15):2089–2093

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown FM, Fletcher CD (2000) Problems in grading soft tissue sarcomas. Am J Clin Pathol 114(Suppl):S82–S89

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Domanski HA, Akerman M, Carlen 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):229–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Palmer HE, Mukunyadzi P, Culbreth W, Thomas JR (2001) Subgrouping and grading of soft-tissue sarcomas by fine-needle aspiration cytology: a histopathologic correlation study. Diagn Cytopathol 24(5):307–316

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Heslin MJ, Lewis JJ, Woodruff JM, Brennan MF (1997) Core needle biopsy for diagnosis of extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Ann Surg Oncol 4(5):425–431

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Benz MR, Dry SM, Eilber FC et al (2010) Correlation between glycolytic phenotype and tumor grade in soft-tissue sarcomas by 18 F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 51(8):1174–1181

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rakheja R, Makis W, Skamene S et al (2012) Correlating metabolic activity on 18 F-FDG PET/CT with histopathologic characteristics of osseous and soft-tissue sarcomas: a retrospective review of 136 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(6):1409–1416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36(12):1944–1951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Folpe AL, Lyles RH, Sprouse JT, Conrad EU 3rd, Eary JF (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(4):1279–1287

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tateishi U, Yamaguchi U, Seki K, Terauchi T, Arai Y, Hasegawa T (2006) Glut-1 expression and enhanced glucose metabolism are associated with tumour grade in bone and soft tissue sarcomas: a prospective evaluation by [18 F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33(6):683–691

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Radiology 226(1):24–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Association NEM (2001) NEMA NU 2 - Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. National Electrical Manufacturers Association

  15. Haug AR, Tiega Donfack BP, Trumm C et al (2012) 18 F-FDG PET/CT predicts survival after radioembolization of hepatic metastases from breast cancer. J Nucl Med 53:371–377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Boellaard R (2011) New EANM FDG PET/CT accrediation specifcations for SUV recovery coefficients

  17. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):122S–150S

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. IARC (2013) WHO Classification of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone (IARC WHO Classification of Tumours). World Health Organization

  19. Fletcher CD, Berman JJ, Corless C et al (2002) Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A consensus approach. Hum Pathol 33(5):459–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. (2012) Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol, 23 Suppl 7:vii92-99

  21. Green FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al (2002) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edn. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44(3):837–845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA (2004) Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med 45(9):1519–1527

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Andreas Elsner for customizing the Hybrid Viewer 3D. The scientific guarantor of this publication is Wolfgang Peter Fendler, MD. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. None of the study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: retrospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Wolfgang P. Fendler, Rebecca P. Chalkidis, Harun Ilhan & Peter Bartenstein

  2. Institute of Pathology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Thomas Knösel

  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Julius-Maximilians-University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    Ken Herrmann

  4. Department of Internal Medicine III, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Rolf D. Issels & Lars H. Lindner

  5. Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Rolf D. Issels, Peter Bartenstein & Lars H. Lindner

  6. Department of Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Clemens C. Cyran

  7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria

    Marcus Hacker

  8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    Wolfgang P. Fendler

Authors
  1. Wolfgang P. Fendler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca P. Chalkidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Harun Ilhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Knösel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ken Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rolf D. Issels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Peter Bartenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Clemens C. Cyran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Lars H. Lindner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Marcus Hacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang P. Fendler.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 2722 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fendler, W.P., Chalkidis, R.P., Ilhan, H. et al. Evaluation of several FDG PET parameters for prediction of soft tissue tumour grade at primary diagnosis and recurrence. Eur Radiol 25, 2214–2221 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3654-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3654-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation