SNM Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     




J Nucl Med. 2007; 48 (Supplement 2):370P
This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by King, J.
Right arrow Articles by Alavi, A.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by King, J.
Right arrow Articles by Alavi, A.

Oncology: Clinical Diagnosis-Solid Tumors
Clinical Diagnosis-Solid Tumors Posters

Can the maximum SUV and number of metastases on PET imaging be used to predict patient survival in soft tissue sarcoma?

Joseph King1, Christian Ogilvie1, Jagruti Shah2, Richard Lackman1, Arthur Staddon3 and Abass Alavi2

1 Orthopaedic Surgery; 2 Nuclear Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 3 Oncology, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


Formula

1583

Objectives: Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are a diverse group of sarcomas that have proven difficult to treat with a poor outcome even with advanced methods. The goal of this study was to determine if the maximum SUV and the number of metastatic sites with increased metabolic activity on PET scan can predict outcome and survival of patients with STS. Methods: 34 patients(13 f, 21 m, mean age 48yrs) with high-grade STS who had PET scans were retrospectively reviewed for this analysis. PET scans were performed at various points in the treatment process. At last follow-up (mean 16 months), 22 had died. Patients were split into 5 groups according to FDG uptake. Group 1 did not have any sites of increased uptake in any PET scan. Group 2 had SUV max less than 2. Group 3 had SUV max between 2 and 6. Group 4 had SUV max between 6 and 10. Group 5 had SUV max≥10. The mean survival of patients with STS was analyzed with the max SUV groups as well as with the highest number of metastatic sites present on PET scan. Results: The 4 patients in Group 1 had a mean survival of 40.0 months (range 6.4-98.3, all 4 alive at last follow-up). No patient had max SUV between 0 and 2(Group 2). Twenty-one patients were in Group 3 with a mean survival of 12.7 months(range 1.9-39.4, 5 alive). Five patients were in Group 4 with a mean survival of 18.3 months(range 3.7-34.2, 2 alive). Four patients were in Group 5 with a mean survival of 4.4 months(range 1.5-8.2, 1 alive). The mean overall survival was statistically significant in Group 3 compared to Group 5(p=0.03,Wilcoxon) and when comparing the combined Groups 3 and 4 (SUVmax from 2 to 10) with Group 5(p=0.03). In comparing the other groups individually, none were statistically different (p=0.06-0.44) due to the small number of subjects in each group. A decreasing survival trend was also found when looking at patients with more metastatic sites seen on PET although they were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Our study found that STS patients with SUVmax ≥10 have significantly decreased survival compared to those with SUVmax <10. Further studies need to be conducted to verify this finding of SUV as a prognostic indicator in high-grade STS.





This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by King, J.
Right arrow Articles by Alavi, A.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by King, J.
Right arrow Articles by Alavi, A.