18F-FDG PET for the diagnosis and grading of soft-tissue sarcoma: a meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED PET using (18)F-FDG is increasingly used for the diagnosis and grading of tumors. Several studies have been performed that evaluate the diagnostic and grading performance of (18)F-FDG PET for soft-tissue sarcoma, but each study has had a limited sample size. Therefore, we undertook a comprehensive meta-analysis of the evidence. METHODS Relevant studies were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE. Diagnostic and grading performance were evaluated for qualitative visualization; standard uptake value (SUV, cutoffs of 2.0 and 3.0); and metabolic rate of glucose (MRG, cutoff of 6.0 micro mol/100 g/min). Quantitative data synthesis included independent weighting of sensitivity and specificity, construction of summary receiver operating characteristic curves, and pooled analyses. RESULTS The meta-analysis included 15 studies with 441 soft-tissue lesions (227 malignant, 214 benign). For diagnosis of malignant versus benign lesions, typical pairs of sensitivity and specificity estimates from the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 92% and 73% for qualitative visualization; 87% and 79% for SUV 2.0; 70% and 87% for SUV 3.0; and 74% and 73% for MRG 6.0. Diagnostic performance was similar for primary and recurrent lesions. By qualitative interpretation, (18)F-FDG was positive in all intermediate/high-grade tumors (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.3%-100%), 74.4% (95% CI, 58.6%-85.9%) of low-grade tumors, and 39.3% (95% CI, 29.1%-50.3%) of benign lesions (including 11 of 12 inflammatory lesions). Using an SUV cutoff of 2.0, respective rates were 89.4% (95% CI, 79.4%-95.6%), 33.1% (95% CI, 15.6%-55.3%), and 19.1% (95% CI, 10.6%-30.5%). Limited data on comparisons with MRI and CT showed no differences against (18)F-FDG PET in diagnosing recurrent and metastatic disease. CONCLUSION (18)F-FDG PET has very good discriminating ability in the evaluation of both primary and recurrent soft-tissue lesions. (18)F-FDG PET may be helpful in tumor grading but offers inadequate discrimination between low-grade tumors and benign lesions.

[1]  K. Takagishi,et al.  Schwannoma of the extremities: the role of PET in preoperative planning , 2001, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[2]  D Delbeke,et al.  Positron emission tomography imaging in oncology. , 2001, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[3]  J. Lau,et al.  PET scans and technology assessment: déjà vu? , 2001, JAMA.

[4]  G. Rosen,et al.  Role of repeated F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in management of patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. , 2001, Cancer biotherapy & radiopharmaceuticals.

[5]  A. Folpe,et al.  (F-18) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a predictor of pathologic grade and other prognostic variables in bone and soft tissue sarcoma. , 2000, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[6]  R. Hughes,et al.  Evaluation of 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG PET) in the detection of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours arising from within plexiform neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis 1 , 2000, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[7]  K. Takagishi,et al.  Glucose metabolic analysis of musculoskeletal tumours using 18fluorine-FDG PET as an aid to preoperative planning. , 2000, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[8]  Janet F Eary,et al.  Nuclear medicine in cancer diagnosis , 1999, The Lancet.

[9]  S. Hain,et al.  Fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the evaluation of amputations for soft tissue sarcoma. , 1999, Nuclear medicine communications.

[10]  S. Reske,et al.  Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography of soft tissue tumours: is a non-invasive determination of biological activity possible? , 1999, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[11]  P. Marsden,et al.  Prospective evaluation of soft tissue masses and sarcomas using fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography , 1999, The British journal of surgery.

[12]  W. Vaalburg,et al.  FDG and L-[1-11C]-tyrosine imaging of soft-tissue tumors before and after therapy. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  P. Marsden,et al.  A PET study of 18FDG uptake in soft tissue masses , 1999, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  Otto Muzik,et al.  Imaging proliferation in vivo with [F-18]FLT and positron emission tomography , 1998, Nature Medicine.

[15]  T K Lewellen,et al.  Carbon-11-thymidine and FDG to measure therapy response. , 1998, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[16]  M. A. Smith,et al.  Evaluation of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of soft-tissue sarcomas. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[17]  D. Mankoff,et al.  Quantitative [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in pretreatment and grading of sarcoma. , 1998, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[18]  D Delbeke,et al.  Prospective investigation of positron emission tomography in lung nodules. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  S S Gambhir,et al.  Decision tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in the staging and management of non-small-cell lung carcinoma. , 1997, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  H C Charles,et al.  Monitoring of neoadjuvant therapy response of soft-tissue and musculoskeletal sarcoma using fluorine-18-FDG PET. , 1996, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[21]  A. Willemsen,et al.  FDG-PET to evaluate response to hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion for locally advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. , 1996, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[22]  D H Leung,et al.  Analysis of prognostic factors in 1,041 patients with localized soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  W Vaalburg,et al.  Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging of soft-tissue sarcoma. , 1996, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[24]  T. Jones,et al.  Can positron emission tomography (PET) be used to detect subclinical response to cancer therapy? The EC PET Oncology Concerted Action and the EORTC PET Study Group. , 1995, European journal of cancer.

[25]  R A Koeppe,et al.  Neoplasms in a pediatric population: 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET studies. , 1995, Radiology.

[26]  L E Moses,et al.  Estimating Diagnostic Accuracy from Multiple Conflicting Reports , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[27]  L E Moses,et al.  Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[28]  L. Griffeth,et al.  PET evaluation of soft-tissue masses with fluorine-18 fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. , 1992, Radiology.

[29]  P. Easterbrook,et al.  Publication bias in clinical research , 1991, The Lancet.

[30]  L. Adler,et al.  Grading liposarcomas with PET using [18F]FDG. , 1990, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[31]  S. Larson,et al.  Metabolic imaging of human extremity musculoskeletal tumors by PET. , 1988, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.