Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Anesthesiology Cardiology Dermatology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology General Medicine Geriatrics Hematology Infectious Diseases Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology Ophthalmology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery Urology
Congress Coverage
ASH 2024 Annual Meeting 2024 ESMO Congress 2024 ERS Congress 2024 EASD Congress 2024 ESC Congress 2024 EAN Congress 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on adolescent vaping

LIVE: Wednesday 29th January, 18:00-19:30 CET

Growing numbers of young people are using e-cigarettes, despite warnings of respiratory effects and addiction. How can doctors tackle the epidemic, and what health effects should you prepare to manage in your clinics?
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Skeletal Radiology
Published in:

09-07-2022 | Multiple Myeloma | Review Article

Whole body imaging in musculoskeletal oncology: when, why, and how

Authors: Joao R. T. Vicentini, Miriam A. Bredella

Published in: Skeletal Radiology | Issue 3/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

The use of whole-body imaging has become increasingly popular in oncology due to the possibility of evaluating total tumor burden with a single imaging study. This is particularly helpful in cases of widespread disease where dedicated regional imaging would make the evaluation more expensive, time consuming, and prone to more risks. Different techniques can be used, including whole-body MRI, whole-body CT, and PET-CT. Common indications include surveillance of cancer predisposing syndromes, evaluation of osseous metastases and clonal plasma cell disorders such as multiple myeloma, and evaluation of soft tissue lesions, including peripheral nerve sheath tumors. This review focuses on advanced whole-body imaging techniques and their main uses in musculoskeletal oncology.
Literature
1.
Hillengass J, Usmani S, Rajkumar SV, Durie BGM, Mateos M-V, Lonial S, et al. International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:e302–12.CrossRef
2.
Davila D, Antoniou A, Chaudhry MA. Evaluation of osseous metastasis in bone scintigraphy. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45:3–15.CrossRef
3.
Vicentini JRT, Bredella MA. Role of FDG PET in the staging of multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol. 2022;51:31–41.CrossRef
4.
Behzadi AH, Raza SI, Carrino JA, Kosmas C, Gholamrezanezhad A, Basques K, et al. Applications of PET/CT and PET/MR imaging in primary bone malignancies. PET Clin. 2018;13:623–34.CrossRef
5.
Morone M, Bali MA, Tunariu N, Messiou C, Blackledge M, Grazioli L, et al. Whole-body MRI: current applications in oncology. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209:W336–49.CrossRef
6.
Ormond Filho AG, Carneiro BC, Pastore D, Silva IP, Yamashita SR, Consolo FD, et al. Whole-body imaging of multiple myeloma: diagnostic criteria. Radiographics. 2019;39:1077–97.CrossRef
7.
Winfield JM, Blackledge MD, Tunariu N, Koh D-M, Messiou C. Whole-body MRI: a practical guide for imaging patients with malignant bone disease. Clin Radiol. 2021;76:715–27.CrossRef
8.
Gottumukkala RV, Gee MS, Hampilos PJ, Greer M-LC. Current and emerging roles of whole-body MRI in evaluation of pediatric cancer patients. RadioGraphics. 2019;39:516–34.CrossRef
9.
Ahlawat S, Fayad LM, Khan MS, Bredella MA, Harris GJ, Evans DG, et al. Current whole-body MRI applications in the neurofibromatoses: NF1, NF2, and schwannomatosis. Neurology. 2016;87:S31–9.CrossRef
10.
Fayad LM, Jacobs MA, Wang X, Carrino JA, Bluemke DA. Musculoskeletal tumors: how to use anatomic, functional, and metabolic MR techniques. Radiology. 2012;265:340–56.CrossRef
11.
Messiou C, Hillengass J, Delorme S, Lecouvet FE, Moulopoulos LA, Collins DJ, et al. Guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI in myeloma: Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS). Radiology. 2019;291:5–13.CrossRef
12.
Padhani AR, Koh D-M, Collins DJ. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cancer: current status and research directions. Radiology. 2011;261:700–18.CrossRef
13.
Del Vescovo R, Frauenfelder G, Giurazza F, Piccolo CL, Cazzato RL, Grasso RF, et al. Role of whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI in detecting bone metastasis. Radiol Med (Torino). 2014;119:758–66.CrossRef
14.
Dutoit JC, Verstraete KL. Whole-body MRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and diffusion-weighted imaging for the staging of multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol. 2017;46:733–50.CrossRef
15.
Nakanishi K, Kobayashi M, Nakaguchi K, Kyakuno M, Hashimoto N, Onishi H, et al. Whole-body MRI for detecting metastatic bone tumor: diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted images. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2007;6:147–55.CrossRef
16.
Takenaka D, Ohno Y, Matsumoto K, Aoyama N, Onishi Y, Koyama H, et al. Detection of bone metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients: comparison of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), whole-body MR imaging without and with DWI, whole-body FDG-PET/CT, and bone scintigraphy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:298–308.CrossRef
17.
Pawlyn C, Fowkes L, Otero S, Jones JR, Boyd KD, Davies FE, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI: a new gold standard for assessing disease burden in patients with multiple myeloma? Leukemia. 2016;30:1446–8.CrossRef
18.
Larbi A, Omoumi P, Pasoglou V, Michoux N, Triqueneaux P, Tombal B, et al. Whole-body MRI to assess bone involvement in prostate cancer and multiple myeloma: comparison of the diagnostic accuracies of the T1, short tau inversion recovery (STIR), and high b-values diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences. Eur Radiol. 2019;29:4503–13.CrossRef
19.
Costelloe CM, Madewell JE, Kundra V, Harrell RK, Bassett RL, Ma J. Conspicuity of bone metastases on fast Dixon-based multisequence whole-body MRI: clinical utility per sequence. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;31:669–75.CrossRef
20.
Bray TJP, Singh S, Latifoltojar A, Rajesparan K, Rahman F, Narayanan P, et al. Diagnostic utility of whole body Dixon MRI in multiple myeloma: a multi-reader study Jiang Q, editor. PLOS ONE. 2017;12:e0180562.CrossRef
21.
Padhani AR, Lecouvet FE, Tunariu N, Koh D-M, De Keyzer F, Collins DJ, et al. METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer: practical guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging-based evaluations of multiorgan involvement in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71:81–92.CrossRef
22.
Consul N, Amini B, Ibarra-Rovira JJ, Blair KJ, Moseley TW, Taher A, et al. Li-Fraumeni syndrome and whole-body MRI screening: screening guidelines, imaging features, and impact on patient management. Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216:252–63.CrossRef
23.
Villani A, Shore A, Wasserman JD, Stephens D, Kim RH, Druker H, et al. Biochemical and imaging surveillance in germline TP53 mutation carriers with Li-Fraumeni syndrome: 11 year follow-up of a prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1295–305.CrossRef
24.
Kleinerman RA. Radiation-sensitive genetically susceptible pediatric sub-populations. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39:27–31.CrossRef
25.
Jiang W, Rixiati Y, Zhao B, Li Y, Tang C, Liu J. Incidence, prevalence, and outcomes of systemic malignancy with bone metastases. J Orthop Surg. 2020;28:230949902091598.CrossRef
26.
Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM, Laukamp D, Sciuk J, Jürgens H, et al. Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:229–36.CrossRef
27.
Nakanishi K, Kobayashi M, Takahashi S, Nakata S, Kyakuno M, Nakaguchi K, et al. Whole body MRI for detecting metastatic bone tumor: comparison with bone scintigrams. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2005;4:11–7.CrossRef
28.
Sohaib SA, Cook G, Allen SD, Hughes M, Eisen T, Gore M. Comparison of whole-body MRI and bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in renal cancer. Br J Radiol. 2009;82:632–9.CrossRef
29.
Chen B, Wei P, Macapinlac HA, Lu Y. Comparison of 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scan in detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2019;40:940–6.CrossRef
30.
Kosmin M, Padhani AR, Gogbashian A, Woolf D, Ah-See M-L, Ostler P, et al. Comparison of whole-body MRI, CT, and bone scintigraphy for response evaluation of cancer therapeutics in metastatic breast cancer to bone. Radiology. 2020;297:622–9.CrossRef
31.
Perez-Lopez R, Tunariu N, Padhani AR, Oyen WJG, Fanti S, Vargas HA, et al. Imaging diagnosis and follow-up of advanced prostate cancer: clinical perspectives and state of the art. Radiology. 2019;292:273–86.CrossRef
32.
Wu Q, Yang R, Zhou F, Hu Y. Comparison of whole-body MRI and skeletal scintigraphy for detection of bone metastatic tumors: a meta-analysis. Surg Oncol. 2013;22:261–6.CrossRef
33.
Wu L-M, Gu H-Y, Zheng J, Xu X, Lin L-H, Deng X, et al. Diagnostic value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34:128–35.CrossRef
34.
Papageorgiou I, Dvorak J, Cosma I, Pfeil A, Teichgraeber U, Malich A. Whole-body MRI: a powerful alternative to bone scan for bone marrow staging without radiation and gadolinium enhancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2020;22:1321–8.CrossRef
35.
Lee K, Park HY, Kim KW, Lee AJ, Yoon MA, Chae EJ, et al. Advances in whole body MRI for musculoskeletal imaging: diffusion-weighted imaging. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019;10:680–6.CrossRef
36.
Pearce T, Philip S, Brown J, Koh DM, Burn PR. Bone metastases from prostate, breast and multiple myeloma: differences in lesion conspicuity at short-tau inversion recovery and diffusion-weighted MRI. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:1102–6.CrossRef
37.
Rajkumar SV. Updated diagnostic criteria and staging system for multiple myeloma. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:e418-423.CrossRef
38.
Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos M-V, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e538-548.CrossRef
39.
Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, Englaro E, Castellucci P, Geatti O, et al. A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2007;92:50–5.CrossRef
40.
Chen J, Li C, Tian Y, Xiao Q, Deng M, Hu H, et al. Comparison of whole-body DWI and 18 F-FDG PET/CT for detecting intramedullary and extramedullary lesions in multiple myeloma. Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213:514–23.CrossRef
41.
Wang D, Huo Y, Chen S, Wang H, Ding Y, Zhu X, et al. Whole-body MRI versus 18F-FDG PET/CT for pretherapeutic assessment and staging of lymphoma: a meta-analysis. OncoTargets Ther. 2018;11:3597–608.CrossRef
42.
Albano D, Bruno A, Patti C, Micci G, Midiri M, Tarella C, et al. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) in lymphoma: state of the art. Hematol Oncol. 2020;38:12–21.CrossRef
43.
Albano D, Patti C, Lagalla R, Midiri M, Galia M. Whole-body MRI, FDG-PET/CT, and bone marrow biopsy, for the assessment of bone marrow involvement in patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma: whole-body MRI in lymphoma marrow involvement. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;45:1082–9.CrossRef
44.
Adams HJA, Kwee TC, Vermoolen MA, de Keizer B, de Klerk JMH, Adam JA, et al. Whole-body MRI for the detection of bone marrow involvement in lymphoma: prospective study in 116 patients and comparison with FDG-PET. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:2271–8.CrossRef
45.
Kharuzhyk S, Zhavrid E, Dziuban A, Sukolinskaja E, Kalenik O. Comparison of whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging and PET/CT in lymphoma staging. Eur Radiol. 2020;30:3915–23.CrossRef
46.
Jurik AG, Jørgensen PH, Mortensen MM. Whole-body MRI in assessing malignant transformation in multiple hereditary exostoses and enchondromatosis: audit results and literature review. Skeletal Radiol. 2020;49:115–24.CrossRef
47.
Kim JR, Yoon HM, Jung AY, Cho YA, Seo JJ, Lee JS. Comparison of whole-body MRI, bone scan, and radiographic skeletal survey for lesion detection and risk stratification of Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis. Sci Rep. 2019;9:317.CrossRef
48.
Goo HW, Yang DH, Ra YS, Song JS, Im HJ, Seo JJ, et al. Whole-body MRI of Langerhans cell histiocytosis: comparison with radiography and bone scintigraphy. Pediatr Radiol. 2006;36:1019–31.CrossRef
49.
Miettunen PM, Lafay-Cousin L, Guilcher GMT, Nettel-Aguirre A, Moorjani V. Widespread osteonecrosis in children with leukemia revealed by whole-body MRI. Clin Orthop. 2012;470:3587–95.CrossRef
50.
Yoon HM, Kim JR, Jung AY, Cho YA, Im HJ, Lee JS. Whole body MR imaging: a useful imaging modality in the management of children with acute myeloid leukemia. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2017;17:231–7.CrossRef
51.
Cai W, Kassarjian A, Bredella MA, Harris GJ, Yoshida H, Mautner VF, et al. Tumor burden in patients with neurofibromatosis types 1 and 2 and schwannomatosis: determination on whole-body MR images. Radiology. 2009;250:665–73.CrossRef
52.
Ahlawat S, Blakeley JO, Langmead S, Belzberg AJ, Fayad LM. Current status and recommendations for imaging in neurofibromatosis type 1, neurofibromatosis type 2, and schwannomatosis. Skeletal Radiol. 2020;49:199–219.CrossRef
53.
Plotkin SR, Bredella MA, Cai W, Kassarjian A, Harris GJ, Esparza S, et al. Quantitative assessment of whole-body tumor burden in adult patients with neurofibromatosis Herholz K, editor. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e35711.CrossRef
54.
Cai W, Steinberg SM, Bredella MA, Basinsky G, Somarouthu B, Plotkin SR, et al. Volumetric MRI analysis of plexiform neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis type 1. Acad Radiol. 2018;25:144–52.CrossRef
55.
Dombi E, Baldwin A, Marcus LJ, Fisher MJ, Weiss B, Kim A, et al. Activity of selumetinib in neurofibromatosis type 1–related plexiform neurofibromas. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2550–60.CrossRef
56.
Weiss B, Widemann BC, Wolters P, Dombi E, Vinks A, Cantor A, et al. Sirolimus for progressive neurofibromatosis type 1-associated plexiform neurofibromas: a Neurofibromatosis Clinical Trials Consortium phase II study. Neuro-Oncol. 2015;17:596–603.CrossRef
57.
Demehri S, Belzberg A, Blakeley J, Fayad LM. Conventional and functional MR imaging of peripheral nerve sheath tumors: initial experience. Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35:1615–20.CrossRef
58.
Derlin T, Tornquist K, Münster S, Apostolova I, Hagel C, Friedrich RE, et al. Comparative effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET/CT versus whole-body MRI for detection of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors in neurofibromatosis type 1. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:e19-25.CrossRef
59.
Moulopoulos LA, Koutoulidis V, Hillengass J, Zamagni E, Aquerreta JD, Roche CL, et al. Recommendations for acquisition, interpretation and reporting of whole body low dose CT in patients with multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders: a report of the IMWG Bone Working Group. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8:95.CrossRef
60.
Simeone FJ, Harvey JP, Yee AJ, O’Donnell EK, Raje NS, Torriani M, et al. Value of low-dose whole-body CT in the management of patients with multiple myeloma and precursor states. Skeletal Radiol. 2019;48:773–9.CrossRef
61.
Hinge M, Andersen KT, Lund T, Jorgensen HB, Holdgaard PC, Ormstrup TE, et al. Baseline bone involvement in multiple myeloma - a prospective comparison of conventional X-ray, low-dose computed tomography, and 18flourodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in previously untreated patients. Haematologica. 2016;101:e415–8.CrossRef
62.
Kröpil P, Fenk R, Fritz LB, Blondin D, Kobbe G, Mödder U, et al. Comparison of whole-body 64-slice multidetector computed tomography and conventional radiography in staging of multiple myeloma. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:51–8.CrossRef
63.
Hillengass J, Moulopoulos LA, Delorme S, Koutoulidis V, Mosebach J, Hielscher T, et al. Whole-body computed tomography versus conventional skeletal survey in patients with multiple myeloma: a study of the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood Cancer J. 2017;7:e599–e599.CrossRef
64.
Kapoor V, McCook BM, Torok FS. An introduction to PET-CT imaging. Radiographics. 2004;24:523–43.CrossRef
65.
Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):11S-20S.
66.
Buchbender C, Hartung-Knemeyer V, Forsting M, Antoch G, Heusner TA. Positron emission tomography (PET) attenuation correction artefacts in PET/CT and PET/MRI. Br J Radiol. 2013;86:20120570.CrossRef
67.
Breyer RJ, Mulligan ME, Smith SE, Line BR, Badros AZ. Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT with other imaging modalities in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol. 2006;35:632–40.CrossRef
68.
Sager S, Ergül N, Ciftci H, Cetin G, Güner Sİ, Cermik TF. The value of FDG PET/CT in the initial staging and bone marrow involvement of patients with multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40:843–7.CrossRef
69.
Moreau P, Attal M, Caillot D, Macro M, Karlin L, Garderet L, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging and [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography at diagnosis and before maintenance therapy in symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial: results of the IMAJEM study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2911–8.CrossRef
70.
Patriarca F, Carobolante F, Zamagni E, Montefusco V, Bruno B, Englaro E, et al. The role of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose integrated with computed tomography in the evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant J Am Soc Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21:1068–73.CrossRef
71.
Stecco A, Buemi F, Iannessi A, Carriero A, Gallamini A. Current concepts in tumor imaging with whole-body MRI with diffusion imaging (WB-MRI-DWI) in multiple myeloma and lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2018;59:2546–56.CrossRef
72.
Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, Cavalli F, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059–67.CrossRef
73.
Berthet L, Cochet A, Kanoun S, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Humbert O, Toubeau M, et al. In newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, determination of bone marrow involvement with 18 F-FDG PET/CT provides better diagnostic performance and prognostic stratification than does biopsy. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1244–50.CrossRef
74.
El-Galaly TC, d’Amore F, Mylam KJ, de Nully BP, Bøgsted M, Bukh A, et al. Routine bone marrow biopsy has little or no therapeutic consequence for positron emission tomography/computed tomography–staged treatment-naive patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4508–14.CrossRef
75.
Khan AB, Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Hunt AA, Cameron L, Morris T, et al. PET-CT staging of DLBCL accurately identifies and provides new insight into the clinical significance of bone marrow involvement. Blood. 2013;122:61–7.CrossRef
76.
Li R, Ravizzini GC, Gorin MA, Maurer T, Eiber M, Cooperberg MR, et al. The use of PET/CT in prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21:4–21.CrossRef
77.
Kannivelu A, Loke K, Kok T, Osmany S, Ali S, Suat-Jin L, et al. The role of PET/CT in the evaluation of skeletal metastases. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2014;18:149–65.CrossRef
78.
Jambor I, Kuisma A, Ramadan S, Huovinen R, Sandell M, Kajander S, et al. Prospective evaluation of planar bone scintigraphy, SPECT, SPECT/CT, 18 F-NaF PET/CT and whole body 1.5T MRI, including DWI, for the detection of bone metastases in high risk breast and prostate cancer patients: SKELETA clinical trial. Acta Oncol. 2016;55:59–67.CrossRef
79.
Damle NA, Bal C, Bandopadhyaya GP, Kumar L, Kumar P, Malhotra A, et al. The role of 18F-fluoride PET-CT in the detection of bone metastases in patients with breast, lung and prostate carcinoma: a comparison with FDG PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scan. Jpn J Radiol. 2013;31:262–9.CrossRef
80.
Fanti S, Goffin K, Hadaschik BA, Herrmann K, Maurer T, MacLennan S, et al. Consensus statements on PSMA PET/CT response assessment criteria in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:469–76.CrossRef
81.
Marcus C, Butler P, Bagrodia A, Cole S, Subramaniam RM. Fluorine-18-labeled fluciclovine PET/CT in primary and biochemical recurrent prostate cancer management. Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215:267–76.CrossRef
82.
Gabriel M, Decristoforo C, Kendler D, Dobrozemsky G, Heute D, Uprimny C, et al. 68Ga-DOTA-Tyr3-octreotide PET in neuroendocrine tumors: comparison with somatostatin receptor scintigraphy and CT. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:508–18.CrossRef
83.
Bredella MA, Caputo GR, Steinbach LS. Value of FDG positron emission tomography in conjunction with mr imaging for evaluating therapy response in patients with musculoskeletal sarcomas. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1145–50.CrossRef
84.
Zhang Q, Xi Y, Li D, Yuan Z, Dong J. The utility of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the diagnosis and staging of chondrosarcoma: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg. 2020;15:229.CrossRef
85.
Cheon GJ, Kim MS, Lee JA, Lee S-Y, Cho WH, Song WS, et al. Prediction model of chemotherapy response in osteosarcoma by 18 F-FDG PET and MRI. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1435–40.CrossRef
86.
Subhawong TK, Winn A, Shemesh SS, Pretell-Mazzini J. F-18 FDG PET differentiation of benign from malignant chondroid neoplasms: a systematic review of the literature. Skeletal Radiol. 2017;46:1233–9.CrossRef
87.
Warbey VS, Ferner RE, Dunn JT, Calonje E, O’Doherty MJ. [18F]FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours in neurofibromatosis type-1. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:751–7.CrossRef
88.
Ferner RE, Golding JF, Smith M, Calonje E, Jan W, Sanjayanathan V, 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. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:390–4.CrossRef
89.
Chirindel A, Chaudhry M, Blakeley JO, Wahl R. 18 F-FDG PET/CT qualitative and quantitative evaluation in neurofibromatosis type 1 patients for detection of malignant transformation: comparison of early to delayed imaging with and without liver activity normalization. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:379–85.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Whole body imaging in musculoskeletal oncology: when, why, and how
Authors
Joao R. T. Vicentini
Miriam A. Bredella
Publication date
09-07-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Skeletal Radiology / Issue 3/2023
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-022-04112-7

Other articles of this Issue 3/2023

Skip metastases in appendicular Ewing sarcoma: relationship to distant metastases at diagnosis, chemotherapy response and overall survival

Bone and soft tissue tumors: clinicoradiologic-pathologic molecular-genetic correlation of novel fusion spindled, targetable-ovoid, giant-cell-rich, and round cell sarcomas

Percutaneous biopsy of musculoskeletal tumors and the potential for needle tract seeding: technical considerations, current controversies, and outcomes

Staging of primary and secondary solid musculoskeletal tumors

Imaging of spinal chordoma and benign notochordal cell tumor (BNCT) with radiologic pathologic correlation

  • Review Article

MRI of squamous cell carcinoma of the nail apparatus: report of 6 cases