Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of the ‘added value’ features of PET–CT compared to conventional imaging (MRI and CT)

From: Retrospective audit of 957 consecutive 18F-FDG PET–CT scans compared to CT and MRI in 493 patients with different histological subtypes of bone and soft tissue sarcoma

Reasons for added value of PET–CT over conventional imaging Number of PET–CT scans per indication
Stagingb Restaginga Treatment response
Occult bone metastases 10 3 1
Recurrence at local site or adjacent to metallic prosthesis not definitive on conventional imaging 0 18 2
Follow up of occult bone metastases 0 8 10
Occult muscular metastases 3 0 0
Follow up of occult muscular metastases 0 3 2
Cardiac metastases (muscular) not detected on conventional imaging 2 1 0
Subcentimetre FDG avid nodes 5 2 1
Static tumoural size, reduced FDG avidity 0 7 16
Static tumoural size, increased FDG avidity 6 2 6
Solitary FDG avid pulmonary nodule, indeterminate on CT 7 3 0
Missed visceral disease on CT/MRI 11 5 5
Metastasis outside the fields of conventional imaging 1 0 0
FDG negative suspected recurrence adjacent to prosthesis or locally in patient with prior markedly avid disease 0 3 2
Intra-lesional heterogeneity—guided biopsy to avoid underestimation of grade 10 6 0
Enlarged FDG negative nodes with moderately FDG avid primary 1 2 0
Increase in tumoural size but reduced avidity 0 0 7
Recurrence at an ablation or surgical site, indeterminate on MRI 0 2 0
Follow up of FDG positive disease adjacent to prosthesis or local surgical site 0 13 7
Total 56 78 59
  1. aRestaging = new baseline imaging prior to new clinical management intervention
  2. bActual number of M0 to M1 upstaging = 25