Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleCLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Prediction Model of Chemotherapy Response in Osteosarcoma by 18F-FDG PET and MRI

Gi Jeong Cheon, Min Suk Kim, Jun Ah Lee, Soo-Yong Lee, Wan Hyeong Cho, Won Seok Song, Jae-Soo Koh, Ji Young Yoo, Dong Hyun Oh, Duk Seop Shin and Dae-Geun Jeon
Journal of Nuclear Medicine September 2009, 50 (9) 1435-1440; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.063602
Gi Jeong Cheon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Min Suk Kim
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jun Ah Lee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Soo-Yong Lee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wan Hyeong Cho
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Won Seok Song
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jae-Soo Koh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ji Young Yoo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dong Hyun Oh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Duk Seop Shin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dae-Geun Jeon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIGURE 1. 
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1. 

    ROC curve analysis of response prediction. ROC curves of SUV1 (A), SUV2 (B), SCR (C), VCR (D), and MVCR (E) were plotted to predict histologic response. On basis of AUC, all parameters—except SUV1—predicted histologic response.

  • FIGURE 2. 
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2. 

    Decision tree for response prediction. Decision tree was devised to predict histologic response based on SUV2 and MVCR values. Predictive values of our model for good responders and poor responders were 97% (31/32) and 95% (36/38), respectively.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Patient Characteristics

    CharacteristicValue
    Age (n)
     ≤15 y41 (58.6%)
     >15 and ≤40 y25 (35.7%)
     >40 y4 (5.7%)
    Sex (n)
     Male48 (68.6%)
     Female22 (31.4%)
    AJCC stage (n)
     IIA24 (34.3%)
     IIB40 (57.1%)
     IV6 (8.6%)
    Tumor volume (cm3)
     Median149
     Range17–2,882
    Location (n)
     Distal femur35 (50.0%)
     Proximal tibia17 (24.3%)
     Proximal humerus6 (8.6%)
     Others12 (17.1%)
    Pattern on plain radiograph (n)
     Lytic17 (24.3%)
     Blastic26 (37.1%)
     Mixed27 (38.6%)
    Pattern on MRI (n)
     Concentric60 (85.7%)
     Longitudinal10 (14.3%)
    SUV1
     Median8.0
     Range2.4–47.5
    SUV2
     Median4.5
     Range1.5–16.6
    Time from first PET to initiation of chemotherapy
     Median6 d
     Range1–13 d
    Time from end of chemotherapy to second PET
     Median19 d
     Range16–22 d
    Time from second PET to surgery
     Median2 d
     Range1–13 d
    Pathologic subtype (n)
     Osteoblastic50 (71.4%)
     Chondroblastic13 (18.6%)
     Fibroblastic5 (7.1%)
     Other2 (2.9%)
    Type of surgery (n)
     Amputation3 (4.3%)
     Limb salvage67 (95.7%)
    Histologic response (n)
     Good33 (47.1%)
     Poor37 (52.9%)
    • AJCC = American Joint Committee on Cancer.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Predictive Values of SUV2, SCR, VCR, and MVCR in 70 Patients

    ParameterCutoff valuenGR/PRPPV (%)NPV (%)Accuracy (%)
    SUV2≤277/01005963
    ≤31915/4796569
    ≤42923/6797677
    ≤54031/9789384
    ≤64631/15679276
    ≤75233/196310073
    SCR≤0.387/1885861
    ≤0.41614/2886570
    ≤0.52621/5817376
    ≤0.63526/9748077
    ≤0.74730/17648771
    ≤0.85030/20608567
    VCR≤0.81610/6635759
    ≤1.02922/7767374
    ≤1.24628/18617967
    MVCR≤0.287/1885861
    ≤0.41916/3846771
    ≤0.63428/6828684
    ≤0.84732/15689677
    ≤1.05232/20629470
    • GR = good responder; PR = poor responder; PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value; SCR = SUV2/SUV1; VCR = tumor volume after chemotherapy/tumor volume before chemotherapy; MVCR = SCR × VCR.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Summary of Previous Studies

    P1P2
    Referencen*GR/PRPMeanMedianRangeMeanMedianRangeCutoff†PPVNPV
    Schulte et al. (7)2717/10TBR10.33.3–33.22.920.32–20.33P2/P1 ≤ 0.6 for GR (n = 19)89.5%100%
    Franzius et al. (13)119/2TBR4.42.3–13.61.70.9–11.9P2/P1 < 0.7 for GR (n = 9)100%100%
    Ye et al. (16)158/7TBR7.13.0–20.63.11.1–6.5P2/P1 < 0.46 for GR (n = 8)100%100%
    Hawkins et at. (14)185/13SUVmax8.22.5–24.13.31.6–12.8P2 < 2 for GR (n = 4)75%85.7%
    Huang et al. (15)102/8SUVmax8.21.4–13.64.41.7–9.6P2/P1 < 0.4 for GR (n = 2)100%100%
    Present study7033/37SUVmax8.02.4–47.54.51.5–16.6Algorithm for GR (n = 32)97%95%
    • ↵* Patients with high-grade osteosarcoma were included in this table.

    • ↵† n = number of patients who met cutoff criteria.

    • GR = good responder; PR = poor responder; P = parameter; P1 = parameter before chemotherapy; P2 = parameter after chemotherapy; PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value; TBR = tumor-to-background ratio.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 50 (9)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 50, Issue 9
September 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prediction Model of Chemotherapy Response in Osteosarcoma by 18F-FDG PET and MRI
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Prediction Model of Chemotherapy Response in Osteosarcoma by 18F-FDG PET and MRI
Gi Jeong Cheon, Min Suk Kim, Jun Ah Lee, Soo-Yong Lee, Wan Hyeong Cho, Won Seok Song, Jae-Soo Koh, Ji Young Yoo, Dong Hyun Oh, Duk Seop Shin, Dae-Geun Jeon
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Sep 2009, 50 (9) 1435-1440; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.063602

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Prediction Model of Chemotherapy Response in Osteosarcoma by 18F-FDG PET and MRI
Gi Jeong Cheon, Min Suk Kim, Jun Ah Lee, Soo-Yong Lee, Wan Hyeong Cho, Won Seok Song, Jae-Soo Koh, Ji Young Yoo, Dong Hyun Oh, Duk Seop Shin, Dae-Geun Jeon
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Sep 2009, 50 (9) 1435-1440; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.063602
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • 18F-FDG PET/CT in the Management of Osteosarcoma
  • 18F-FDG PET/CT in the Management of Osteosarcoma
  • 18F-FDG PET/MRI for Therapy Response Assessment of Isolated Limb Perfusion in Patients with Soft-Tissue Sarcomas
  • 18F-FDG Uptake During Early Adjuvant Chemotherapy Predicts Histologic Response in Pediatric and Young Adult Patients with Osteosarcoma
  • Sarcoma Mid-Therapy [F-18]Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG PET) and Patient Outcome
  • Initial Metabolic Tumor Volume Measured by 18F-FDG PET/CT Can Predict the Outcome of Osteosarcoma of the Extremities
  • Combination of 18F-FDG PET/CT and Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging as a Predictor of Histologic Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Preliminary Results in Osteosarcoma
  • Metabolic Tumor Volume Assessed by 18F-FDG PET/CT for the Prediction of Outcome in Patients with Multiple Myeloma
  • Effects of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Image-Directed Planning of Surgical Resection for Distal Femoral Osteosarcoma
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Feasibility of Ultra-Low-Activity 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging Using a Long–Axial-Field-of-View PET/CT System
  • Cardiac Presynaptic Sympathetic Nervous Function Evaluated by Cardiac PET in Patients with Chronotropic Incompetence Without Heart Failure
  • Validation and Evaluation of a Vendor-Provided Head Motion Correction Algorithm on the uMI Panorama PET/CT System
Show more Clinical Investigations

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire