| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 All authors: Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave., San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to investigate the potential of FDG positron emission tomography (PET) to distinguish viable tumor from changes caused by therapy in areas with equivocal MR imaging findings in patients with musculoskeletal sarcomas.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. We evaluated 12 patients (nine males, three females; age range, 9-56 years; mean age, 25 years) with a history of bone or soft-tissue sarcoma who had undergone various treatments (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or a combination of treatments) and who presented with clinically suspected recurrent or residual tumor. All patients underwent gadopentetate dimeglumine—enhanced MR imaging and whole-body FDG PET. Imaging results were correlated with histologic findings or with clinical findings from long-term follow-up.
RESULTS. In nine patients, MR imaging findings were equivocal in differentiating between posttherapeutic changes and tumor recurrence. FDG PET images showed increased uptake, suggestive of recurrent tumor, in five patients. These findings were confirmed by biopsy. Four patients showed no increased uptake on FDG PET and were closely monitored clinically. No tumor recurrence was found in these patients. One patient showed MR imaging findings suggestive of recurrent tumor that was confirmed on FDG PET and at histology. Two patients underwent a limb salvage procedure before MR imaging, but MR images were deemed inadequate for interpretation because of extensive metallic artifacts. FDG PET was helpful in evaluating these patients for tumor recurrence.
CONCLUSION. FDG PET is a useful adjunct to MR imaging in distinguishing viable tumor from posttherapeutic changes in patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. C. Toner and R. J. Hicks PET for Sarcomas Other Than Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Oncologist, April 1, 2008; 13(suppl_2): 22 - 26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Burke, J. R. Anderson, S. C. Kao, D. Rodeberg, S. J. Qualman, S. L. Wolden, W. H. Meyer, and P. P. Breitfeld Assessment of Response to Induction Therapy and Its Influence on 5-Year Failure-Free Survival in Group III Rhabdomyosarcoma: The Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study-IV Experience A Report From the Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee of the Children's Oncology Group J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2007; 25(31): 4909 - 4913. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. A. Bredella, M. Torriani, F. Hornicek, H. A. Ouellette, W. E. Plamer, Z. Williams, A. J. Fischman, and S. R. Plotkin Value of PET in the Assessment of Patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2007; 189(4): 928 - 935. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Biswal, D. L. Resnick, J. M. Hoffman, and S. S. Gambhir Molecular Imaging: Integration of Molecular Imaging into the Musculoskeletal Imaging Practice Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 651 - 671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L Moon and K McHugh Advances in paediatric tumour imaging Arch. Dis. Child., June 1, 2005; 90(6): 608 - 611. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. A. Bredella, L. Steinbach, G. Caputo, G. Segall, and R. Hawkins Value of FDG PET in the Assessment of Patients with Multiple Myeloma Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2005; 184(4): 1199 - 1204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. B. McCarville, R. Christie, N. C. Daw, S. L. Spunt, and S. C. Kaste PET/CT in the Evaluation of Childhood Sarcomas Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2005; 184(4): 1293 - 1304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
