Ewing sarcoma (ES) and Osteosarcoma (OS) are the 2 most common malignant primary bone tumors. A patient's response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy has important implications in subsequent patient management and prognosis, as a favourable response to chemotherapy allows orthopedic oncologists to be more aggressive in pursuing limb-sparing surgery. An accurate and non-invasive pre-operative marker of response would be ideal for planning surgical margins and as a prognostic tool. ES and OS have differing biological characterisitcs and respond differently to chemotherapy. We reviewed 18F-FDG PET imaging characteristics of ES and OS patients at baseline and following treatment to determine whether this biological variation is reflected in their imaging phenotype. A retrospective review of ES and OS patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery was done, correlating PET results with histologic response to chemotherapy. Change in the maximum standardized Uptake Value (SUVmax) between baseline and post-treatment scanning was not significantly associated with histologic response for either ES or OS. Metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and the percentage of injected 18F-FDG dose (%ID) in the primary tumor were found to be different for ES and OS response subgroups. A 50% reduction in MTV (MTV2:1 < 0.5) was found to be significantly associated with histologic response in OS. Using the same criteria for ES incorrectly predicted good responders. Increasing the cut-offs for ES to a 90% reduction in MTV (MTV 2:1 < 0.1) resulted in association with histologic response. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy as reflected by changes in PET characteristics should be interpreted differently for ES and OS.
Ewings Sarcoma (ES) and Osteosarcoma (OS) behave and respond differently to chemotherapy and any interpretation of diagnostics tests to predict a patients response to treatment must consider this. We reviewed 18F-FDG PET imaging characteristics of consecutive series of ES and OS patients to determine if any differences in PET imaging existed between them. A retrospective review was performed of 31 patients with ES and OS who received all their treatment by our group and who had pre- and post-chemotherapy 18F-FDG PET scans at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre from Jan 1, 1999 to December 1, 2009 (Table 1). Patients who did not have both their pre- and post-chemotherapy PET scans done at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre were excluded from the study to remove bias from having different PET scanning protocols. Patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to standard protocols, all starting within 2 weeks after the initial pre-chemotherapy PET scans (PET1). The PET scan taken after the last cycle of chemotherapy prior to surgery was considered as the post-chemotherapy scan (PET2). The ratio between pre and post-chemotherapy for each PET parameter was then associated with the histology response for both ES and OS, and positive (PPV) and negative predicting values (NPV) of each parameter were calculated.Purpose
Method
