TABLE 1

Characteristics of Studies Evaluating 18F-FDG PET for Diagnosis or Grading of STS

StudyMean age (range)Patients with STLEvaluable patients* (lesions)Malignant (%)Inclusion/exclusion criteriaPrimary/recurrentDesign
Schwarzbach 200054 (16–78)5047 (56)35 (63)Consecutive patients suspected of STS from clinical symptoms and MRI or CT19/37Prospective
Watanabe 200047 (12–77)3737 (37)7 (19)Patients referred for STM evaluation after CT, MRI, or angiography33/4Unclear
Griffeth 199250 (16–84)2119 (20)10 (50)Patients referred for STM evaluation after CT or MRI10/10?Unclear
Schulte 199949 (1–89)102102 (102)66 (65)Patients with STL suggestive of benign or malignant tumor on US or MRI88/14Prospective
Lucas 199951 (6–85)3030 (31)19 (61)Consecutive patients with suspected STS from clinical symptoms and MRI31/0Unclear
Nieweg 199650 (18–82)2222 (22)18 (82)Patients suspected of STS from clinical findings22/0Prospective
Hain 199939 (11–81)1616 (16)2 (13)Patients after amputation for STS, evaluated for recurrence0/16Retrospective
Kern 198830 (12–63)44 (4)3 (75)Patients referred with STM4/0Unclear
Lucas 199851 (3–84)6262 (72)19 (26)STS patients evaluated for local recurrence0/72Retrospective
Lodge 199950 (18–76)2929 (29)12 (41)STM suspected to be malignant based on clinical examination and MRI29/0Prospective
van Ginkel 199649 (18–80)207 (7)7 (100)Patients with biopsy-proven recurrent STS, assessed before HILP therapy0/7Prospective
Kole 199754 (32–83)1717 (17)15 (88)Patients with proven or suspected local recurrence of STS0/17Prospective
Ferner 200026 (12–62)1515 (19)5 (26)Patients with neurofibromatosis with symptomatic visible neurofibromas19/0Unclear
Adler 1990ND (41–85)55 (5)5 (100)Patients with liposarcoma of the thigh5/0Prospective?
Jones 199654 (46–65)44 (4)4 (100)Histologically confirmed STS with planned radiotherapy/hyperthermia4/0Unclear
  • * In Schwarzbach et al. (2000), 3 patients were excluded because of no biopsy or technical failure; in Griffeth et al. (1992), 2 patients were excluded because of no diagnostic documentation or follow-up; in van Ginkel et al. (1996), 20 patients with STS were assessed, but those with primary lesions overlapped with patients included in Nieweg et al. (1996). Thus, only the 7 recurrent lesions were considered in all analyses and are listed in table.

  • STL = soft-tissue lesion; STM = soft-tissue mass; US = ultrasound; HILP = hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion; ND = no data.

  • Whenever both soft-tissue lesions and other lesions were included (Watanabe, Kern, Ferner, Jones), only data on soft-tissue lesions are presented in table. Median age is provided in Schwarzbach et al. (2000) and in Schulte et al. (1999).