All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

Usefulness of Whole-Body Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1: A Systematic Review

DOI: 10.1155/2012/431029

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib


Aim. To systematically review the role of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). Methods. A comprehensive literature search of published studies regarding FDG-PET and PET/CT in patients with NF1 was performed. No beginning date limit and language restriction were used; the search was updated until December 2011. Only those studies or subsets in studies including whole-body FDG-PET or PET/CT scans performed in patients with NF1 were included. Results. We identified 12 studies including 352 NF1 patients. Qualitative evaluation was performed in about half of the studies and semiquantitative analysis, mainly based on different values of SUV cutoff, in the others. Most of the studies evaluated the role of FDG-PET for differentiating benign from malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs). Malignant lesions were detected with a sensitivity ranging between 100% and 89%, but with lower specificity, ranging between 100% and 72%. Moreover, FDG-PET seems to be an important imaging modality for predicting the progression to MPNST and the outcome in patients with MPNST. Two studies evaluated the role of FDG-PET in pediatric patients with NF1. Conclusions. FDG-PET and PET/CT are useful methods to identify malignant change in neurogenic tumors in NF1 and to discriminate malignant from benign neurogenic lesions. 1. Introduction Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant disease with an incidence of 1 in 2,500 to 1 in 3,000 subjects. Neurofibroma, a benign peripheral nerve sheath tumor, is the most common tumor in NF1 patients and may manifest as focal nodular, cutaneous or subcutaneous lesion, intraforaminal spinal nerve root tumor, or plexiform neurofibroma (PNF). Patients with NF1 have an increased risk of developing malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs) with a life-time risk of 8–12% [1–6]. MPNSTs usually arise from preexisting benign PNF, metastasize widely, and frequently have a poor prognosis. Therefore, differentiating between benign and malignant tumors in patients with NF1 has important prognostic and therapeutic implications, but can be difficult, especially in individuals who have multiple benign tumors. Optimal management is dependent on early and accurate histological grading and staging of the disease, but MPNSTs are often difficult to detect and may metastasize to many different sites. Pain, rapid increase in size of a neurofibroma, and the development of neurological deficit are clinical indicators of malignancy, but may also be features


[1]  R. E. Ferner, “Neurofibromatosis 1 and neurofibromatosis 2: a twenty first century perspective,” The Lancet Neurology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 340–351, 2007.
[2]  J. H. Tonsgard, “Clinical manifestations and management of neurofibromatosis type 1,” Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 2–7, 2006.
[3]  R. E. Ferner and D. H. Gutmann, “International consensus statement on malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors in neurofibromatosis,” Cancer Research, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 1573–1577, 2002.
[4]  D. G. R. Evans, M. E. Baser, J. McGaughran, S. Sharif, E. Howard, and A. Moran, “Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours in neurofibromatosis,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 311–314, 2002.
[5]  R. E. Ferner, “Neurofibromatosis 1,” European Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 131–138, 2007.
[6]  M. Carli, A. Ferrari, A. Mattke et al., “Pediatric malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor: the Italian and German Soft Tissue Sarcoma Cooperative Group,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 33, pp. 8422–8430, 2005.
[7]  M. R. Benz, N. Tchekmedyian, F. C. Eilber, N. Federman, J. Czernin, and W. D. Tap, “Utilization of positron emission tomography in the management of patients with sarcoma,” Current Opinion in Oncology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 345–351, 2009.
[8]  G. Treglia, E. Cason, and G. Fagioli, “Recent applications of nuclear medicine in diagnostics (I part),” Italian Journal of Medicine, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 84–91, 2010.
[9]  R. E. Ferner, J. D. Lucas, M. J. O'Doherty et al., “Evaluation of 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG PET) in the detection of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours arising from within plexiform neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis 1,” Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 353–357, 2000.
[10]  S. Cardona, M. Schwarzbach, U. Hinz et al., “Evaluation of F18-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) to assess the nature of neurogenic tumours,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 536–541, 2003.
[11]  E. A. Wegner, S. F. Barrington, J. E. Kingston et al., “The impact of PET scanning on management of paediatric oncology patients,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 23–30, 2005.
[12]  W. Brenner, R. E. Friedrich, K. A. Gawad et al., “Prognostic relevance of FDG PET in patients with neurofibromatosis type-1 and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 428–432, 2006.
[13]  B. Bensaid, F. Giammarile, T. Mognetti et al., “Utility of 18 FDG positon emission tomography in detection of sarcomatous transformation in neurofibromatosis type 1,” Annales de Dermatologie et de Venereologie, vol. 134, no. 10, pp. 735–741, 2007.
[14]  M. A. Bredella, M. Torriani, F. Hornicek et al., “Value of PET in the assessment of patients with neurofibromatosis type I,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 189, no. 4, pp. 928–935, 2007.
[15]  R. E. Ferner, J. F. Golding, M. Smith et al., “[18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) as a diagnostic tool for neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) associated malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours (MPNSTs): a long-term clinical study,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 390–394, 2008.
[16]  M. J. Fisher, S. Basu, E. Dombi et al., “The role of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in predicting plexiform neurofibroma progression,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 165–171, 2008.
[17]  K. Karabatsou, T. R. Kiehl, D. M. Wilson, A. Hendler, and A. Guha, “Potential role of 18fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in differentiating benign neurofibroma from malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor associated with neurofibromatosis 1,” Neurosurgery, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. A160–A170, 2009.
[18]  V. S. Warbey, R. E. Ferner, J. T. Dunn, E. Calonje, and M. J. O'Doherty, “FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours in neurofibromatosis type-1,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 754–757, 2009.
[19]  M. R. Benz, J. Czernin, S. M. Dry et al., “Quantitative F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography accurately characterizes peripheral nerve sheath tumors as malignant or benign,” Cancer, vol. 116, pp. 451–458, 2010.
[20]  M. Moharir, K. London, R. Howman-Giles, and K. North, “Utility of positron emission tomography for tumour surveillance in children with neurofibromatosis type 1,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 1309–1317, 2010.


comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us


微信:OALib Journal