Integrated 18F–FDG PET/MRI compared to MRI alone for identification of local recurrences of soft tissue sarcomas: a comparison trial
- 456 Downloads
To assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of PET/MRI and MRI alone for the detection of local recurrences of soft tissue sarcomas (STS) after initial surgical resection of the primary tumors.
Material and methods
A total of 41 patients with clinically suspected tumor relapse of STS underwent an 18F–FDG-PET/MRI examination for assessment of local recurrence. Two experienced physicians interpreted the MRI data and subsequently the PET/MRI datasets in two separate reading sessions and were instructed to identify potential local tumor recurrences. Additionally, the diagnostic confidence in each reading for the identification of malignant lesions was determined. A McNemar test was applied to test for differences of both ratings and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to identify differences of the confidence levels. Histopathological verification and follow-up imaging were applied for standard of reference.
Tumor relapse was present in 27/41 patients. Calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of local tumor recurrence was 82%, 86%, 92%, 71% and 83% for MRI, and 96%, 79%, 90%, 92% and 90% for PET/MRI (p > 0.05). Furthermore, PET/MRI showed significantly higher confidence levels (p < 0.05) for the determination of malignant lesions.
Our results endorse 18F–FDG PET/MRI to be an excellent imaging method in the evaluation of recurrent STS after surgical excision, yielding superior tumor detection when compared to MRI alone.
KeywordsSoft tissue sarcoma Integrated PET/MRI Hybrid imaging
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
Research involving human participants and/or animals
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Research Committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Fletcher CD, Unni KK, Mertens F. Pathology and genetics of tumours of soft tissue and bone: Iarc; 2002.Google Scholar
- 3.Ferrari A, Sultan I, Huang TT, Galindo CR, Shehadeh A, Meazza C, et al. Soft tissue sarcoma across the age Spectrum: a population-based study from the surveillance epidemiology and end results database. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011;57:943–9. doi: 10.1002/pbc.23252.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 5.Goodlad JR, Fletcher CD, Smith MA. Surgical resection of primary soft-tissue sarcoma. Incidence of residual tumour in 95 patients needing re-excision after local resection. J Bone Joint Surg. 1996;78:658–61.Google Scholar
- 7.Diana Afonso P, Kosinski AS, Spritzer CE. Following unenhanced MRI assessment for local recurrence after surgical resection of mesenchymal soft tissue tumors, do additional gadolinium-enhanced images change reader confidence or diagnosis? Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:806–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.11.025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Grueneisen J, Beiderwellen K, Heusch P, Buderath P, Aktas B, Gratz M, et al. Correlation of standardized uptake value and apparent diffusion coefficient in integrated whole-body PET/MRI of primary and recurrent cervical cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9:e96751. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096751.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Heusch P, Buchbender C, Kohler J, Nensa F, Beiderwellen K, Kuhl H, et al. Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) with the standardized uptake value (SUV) in hybrid 18F-FDG PET/MRI in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) lesions: initial results. RoFo. 2013;185:1056–62. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1350110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Herrmann K, Benz MR, Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach MS, Tap WD, Dry SM, et al. <sup>18</sup>F-FDG-PET/CT imaging as an early survival predictor in patients with primary high-grade soft tissue sarcomas undergoing Neoadjuvant therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:2024–31. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-2139.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar