ABSTRACT
The main purpose of evaluating musculoskeletal system (MSS) tumors is diagnosis and staging, and these tumors require a multidisciplinary approach. The role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and bone scintigraphy in the initial evaluation of incidentally detected bone lesions on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and CT and primary bone tumors is limited. In cases where clinical or radiographic findings are considered suspicious or additional anatomical data are required; Advanced imaging modalities such as CT, MR and nuclear medicine examinations play a complementary role in the diagnosis and treatment of primary MSS tumors. The advantage of nuclear medicine examinations over radiography or MRI is the capacity to scan the whole body; it can be used for standard staging, restaging, and evaluation of therapeutic response. In addition, PET/MR appears to have strong potential in soft tissue sarcoma staging and bone marrow evaluation.
References
1Etchebehere EC, Hobbs BP, Milton DR, et al. Assessing the role of ¹⁸F-FDG PET and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/ CT in the diagnosis of soft tissue musculoskeletal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016;43:860-870.
2Bestic JM, Wessell DE, Beaman FD, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Primary Bone Tumors. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:226-S238.
3Sharma P, Mukherjee A, Karunanithi S, et al. 99mTc-Methylene diphosphonate SPECT/CT as the one-stop imaging modality for the diagnosis of osteoid osteoma. Nucl Med Commun 2014;35:876-883.
4P G Casali, S Bielack, N Abecassis, et al. Bone sarcomas: ESMO-PaedCan-EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2018;29(Suppl 4):iv79-iv95.
5Lange MB, Nielsen ML, Andersen JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of imaging methods for the diagnosis of skeletal malignancies: a retrospective analysis against a pathologyproven reference. Eur J Radiol 2016;85:61-67.
6Qu N, Yao W, Cui X, et al. Malignant transformation in monostotic fibrous dysplasia: clinical features, imaging features, outcomes in 10 patients, and review. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e369.
7Choi YY, Kim JY, Yang SO. PET/CT in benign and malignant musculoskeletal tumors and tumor-like conditions. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2014;18:133-148.
8Dominkus M, Ruggieri P, Bertoni F, et al. Histologically verified lung metastases in benign giant cell tumours--14 cases from a single institution. Int Orthop 2006;30:499-504.
9Viswanathan S, Jambhekar NA. Metastatic giant cell tumor of bone: are there associated factors and best treatment modalities? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:827-833.
10Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, et al. FDG PET of primary benign and malignant bone tumors: standardized uptake value in 52 lesions. Radiology 2001;219:774-777.
11Engellau J, Seeger L, Grimer R, et al. Assessment of denosumab treatment effects and imaging response in patients with giant cell tumor of bone. World J Surg Oncol 2018;16:191.
12Lakkaraju A, Patel CN, Bradley KM, et al. PET/CT in primary musculoskeletal tumours: a step forward. Eur Radiol 2010;20:2959-2972.
13Hirata K, Tamaki N. Quantitative FDG PET assessment for oncology therapy. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:869.
14Strobel K, Fischer DR, Stumpe KDM, et al. Imaging primary musculoskeletal tumors: role of 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Imaging Med 2010;2:87-98.
15NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Bone Cancer Version 2.2022- October 8, 2021; NCCN Harmonized GuidelinesTM for Sub-Saharan Africa, Soft Tissue Sarcoma, Version 2.2019- September 26, 2019. Available at https://www.nccn.org/home.
16Hillner BE, Siegel BE, Liu D, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2155-2161.
17Lim HJ, Johnny Ong CA, Tan JWS, et al. Utility of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging in the evaluation of sarcomas: a systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2019;143:1-13.
18Holscher HC, Bloem JL, van der Woude HJ, et al. Can MRI predict the histopathological response in patients with osteosarcoma after the first cycle of chemotherapy? Clin Radiol 1995;50:384-390.
19Holscher HC, Bloem JL, Vanel D, et al. Osteosarcoma: chemotherapy-induced changes at MR imaging. Radiology 1992;182:839-844.
20Holscher HC, Hermans J, Nooy MA, et al. Can conventional radiographs be used to monitor the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with osteogenic sarcoma? Skeletal Radiol 1996;25:19-24.
21Costelloe CM, Macapinlac HA, Madewell JE, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT as an indicator of progression-free and overall survival in osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med 2009;50:340-347.
22El-Qassas NFA, Maarouf RA, Salama AMM. 18F-FDG PET/CT for monitoring of treatment response in breast cancer. Med J Cairo Univ 2021;89:473-479.
23Liu F, Zhang Q, Zhou D, et al. Efectiveness of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and staging of osteosarcoma: a meta-analysis of 26 studies. BMC Cancer 2019;19:323.
24Shin DS, Shon OJ, Han DS, et al. The clinical efficacy of (18)F-FDG-PET/CT in benign and malignant musculoskeletal tumors. Ann Nucl Med 2008;22:603-609.
25Liu F, Zhang Q, Zhu D, et al. Performance of positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose for the diagnosis, staging, and recurrence assessment of bone sarcoma: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e1462.
26Treglia G, Salsano M, Stefanelli A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of (1)(8)F-FDG-PET and PET/CT in patients with Ewing sarcoma family tumours: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol 2012;41:249-256.
27Minamimoto R, Mosci C, Jamali M, et al. Semiquantitative analysis of the biodistribution of the combined (1)(8)F-NaF and (1)(8)F-FDG administration for PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med 2015;56:688-694.
28Jackson T, Mosci C, von Eyben R, et al. Combined 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of sarcoma patients. Clin Nucl Med 2015;40:720-724.
29Campbell KM, Shulman DS, Grier HE, et al. Role of bone marrow biopsy for staging new patients with Ewing sarcoma: A systematic review. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2021;68:e28807.
30Verdegaal SH, Bovee JV, Pansuriya TC, et al. Incidence, predictive factors, and prognosis of chondrosarcoma in patients with Ollier disease and Maffucci syndrome: an international multicenter study of 161 patients. Oncologist 2011;16:1771-1779.
31Collins MS, Koyama T, Swee RG, et al. Clear cell chondrosarcoma: radiographic, computed tomographic, and magnetic resonance findings in 34 patients with pathologic correlation. Skeletal Radiol 2003;32:687-694.
32Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, et al. FDG-PET in differential diagnosis and grading of chondrosarcomas. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999;23:603-608.
33Stacchiotti S, Longhi A, Ferraresi V, et al. Phase II study of imatinib in advanced chordoma. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:914-920.
34Mammar H, Kerrou K, Nataf V, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging of residual skull base chordoma before radiotherapy using fluoromisonidazole and fluorodeoxyglucose: potential consequences for dose painting. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;84:681-687.
35Park YH, Kim S, Choi SJ, et al. Clinical impact of whole-body FDG-PET for evaluation of response and therapeutic decisionmaking of primary lymphoma of bone. Ann Oncol 2005;16:1401-1402.
36Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:3059-3068.
37Shin DS, Shon OJ, Byun SJ, et al. Differentiation between malignant and benign pathologic fractures with F18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Skeletal Radiol 2008;37:415-421.
38Komdeur R, Hoekstra HJ, van den Berg E, et al. Metastasis in soft tissue sarcomas: prognostic criteria and treatment perspectives. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2002;21:167-183.
39Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ, Bingham J, et al. Can FDG PET be used to successfully direct preoperative biopsy of soft tissue tumours? Nucl Med Commun 2003;24:1139-1143.
40Lucas JD, O’Doherty MJ, Cronin BF, et al. Prospective evaluation of soft tissue masses and sarcomas using fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Br J Surg 1999;86:550-556.
41Nieweg OE, Pruim J, van Ginkel RJ, et al. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging of soft-tissue sarcoma. J Nucl Med 1996;37:257-261.
42Folpe AL, Lyles RH, Sprouse JT, et al. (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 2000;6:1279-1287.
43Schwarzbach MH, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Willeke F, et al. Clinical value of 18-F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in soft tissue sarcomas. Ann Surg 2000;231:380-386.
44Lodge MA, Lucas JD, Marsden PK, et al. A PET study of 18FDG uptake in soft tissue masses. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:22-30.
45Lucas JD, O’Doherty MJ, Wong JC, et al. Evaluation of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of soft-tissue sarcomas. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:441-447.
46Schuetze SM. Utility of positron emission tomography in sarcomas. Curr Opin Oncol 2006;18:369-373.
47Völker T, Denecke T, Steffen I, et al. Positron emission tomography for staging of pediatric sarcoma patients: results of a prospective multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5435-5441.
48Tateishi U, Hosono A, Makimoto A, et al. Comparative study of FDG PET/CT and conventional imaging in the staging of rhabdomyosarcoma. Ann Nucl Med 2009;23:155-161.
49Evilevitch V, Weber WA, Tap WD, et al. Reduction of glucose metabolic activity is more accurate than change in size at predicting histopathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy in high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:715-720.
50Benz MR, Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach MS, et al. FDG-PET/CT imaging predicts histopathologic treatment responses after the initial cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:2856-2863.
