Malignant or Aggressive Primary Musculoskeletal Tumor-Staging And Surveillance

Variant: 1 Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for pulmonary metastasis.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography chest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/MRI whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI whole body without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
Bone scan whole body	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/MRI whole body	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoride PET/CT whole body	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢☢
US area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
MRI whole body without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 3 Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor with no suspected or known recurrence. Surveillance for pulmonary metastasis.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography chest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/MRI whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography area of interest	Usually Appropriate	Varies
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
FDG-PET/CT whole body	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/MRI whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoride PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 5 Malignant or aggressive primary soft tissue tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
US area of interest	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
FDG-PET/MRI whole body	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
Radiography area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Panel Members

Jennifer L. Demertzis, MD^a; Rupert Stanborough, MD^b; Daniel E. Wessell, MD, PhD^c; Leon Lenchik, MD^d; Shivani Ahlawat, MD^e; Jonathan C. Baker, MD^f; James Banks, MD^g; Jamie T. Caracciolo, MD, MBA^h; Hillary W. Garner, MDⁱ; Courtney Hentz, MD^j; Valerae O. Lewis, MD^k; Yi Lu, MD, PhD^l; Jennifer R. Maynard, MD^m; Jennifer L. Pierce, MDⁿ; Jinel A. Scott, MD, MBA^o; Akash Sharma, MD, MBA^p; Francesca D. Beaman, MD^q.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for pulmonary metastasis.

Variant 1: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for pulmonary metastasis.
A. CT chest with IV contrast

Variant 1: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for pulmonary metastasis.
B. CT chest without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for pulmonary metastasis.
C. CT chest without IV contrast

Variant 1: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for pulmonary metastasis.
D. FDG-PET/CT whole body

Variant 1: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for pulmonary metastasis.
E. FDG-PET/MRI whole body

Variant 1: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for pulmonary metastasis.
F. Radiography chest

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.
B. Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.
C. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.
D. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.
E. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.
F. FDG-PET/CT whole body

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.
G. FDG-PET/MRI whole body

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.
H. Fluoride PET/CT whole body

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.
I. MRI whole body without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.
J. MRI whole body without IV contrast

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.
K. Radiography area of interest

Variant 2: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor. Initial staging. Evaluation for extrapulmonary metastasis.
L. US area of interest

Variant 3: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor with no suspected or known recurrence. Surveillance for pulmonary metastasis.

Variant 3: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor with no suspected or known recurrence. Surveillance for pulmonary metastasis.
A. CT chest with IV contrast

Variant 3: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor with no suspected or known recurrence. Surveillance for pulmonary metastasis.
B. CT chest without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor with no suspected or known recurrence. Surveillance for pulmonary metastasis.
C. CT chest without IV contrast

Variant 3: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor with no suspected or known recurrence. Surveillance for pulmonary metastasis.
D. FDG-PET/CT whole body

Variant 3: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor with no suspected or known recurrence. Surveillance for pulmonary metastasis.
E. FDG-PET/MRI whole body

Variant 3: Malignant or aggressive primary musculoskeletal tumor with no suspected or known recurrence. Surveillance for pulmonary metastasis.
F. Radiography chest

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
B. Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
C. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
D. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
E. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
F. FDG-PET/CT whole body

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
G. FDG-PET/MRI whole body

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
H. Fluoride PET/CT whole body

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
I. MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
J. MRI area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
K. Radiography area of interest

Variant 4: Malignant or aggressive primary bone tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
L. US area of interest

Variant 5: Malignant or aggressive primary soft tissue tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.

Variant 5: Malignant or aggressive primary soft tissue tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
A. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 5: Malignant or aggressive primary soft tissue tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
B. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Malignant or aggressive primary soft tissue tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
C. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 5: Malignant or aggressive primary soft tissue tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
D. FDG-PET/CT whole body

Variant 5: Malignant or aggressive primary soft tissue tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
E. FDG-PET/MRI whole body

Variant 5: Malignant or aggressive primary soft tissue tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
F. MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Malignant or aggressive primary soft tissue tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
G. MRI area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 5: Malignant or aggressive primary soft tissue tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
H. Radiography area of interest

Variant 5: Malignant or aggressive primary soft tissue tumor. Surveillance for local recurrence.
I. US area of interest

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. Soft tissue and bone tumours. 5th ed. Lyon (France): IARC Press; 2020.
2.	National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cancer Stat Facts: Soft Tissue including Heart Cancer. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/soft.html.
3.	National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cancer Stat Facts: Bone and Joint Cancer. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/bones.html.
4.	Becher S, Oskouei S. PET Imaging in Sarcoma. [Review]. Orthop Clin North Am. 46(3):409-15, xi, 2015 Jul.
5.	Billingsley KG, Lewis JJ, Leung DH, Casper ES, Woodruff JM, Brennan MF. Multifactorial analysis of the survival of patients with distant metastasis arising from primary extremity sarcoma. Cancer 1999;85:389-95.
6.	Liu F, Zhang Q, Zhou D, Dong J. Effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and staging of osteosarcoma: a meta-analysis of 26 studies. BMC Cancer. 19(1):323, 2019 Apr 05.
7.	Mirabello L, Troisi RJ, Savage SA. Osteosarcoma incidence and survival rates from 1973 to 2004: data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cancer 2009;115:1531-43.
8.	Briccoli A, Rocca M, Salone M, Guzzardella GA, Balladelli A, Bacci G. High grade osteosarcoma of the extremities metastatic to the lung: long-term results in 323 patients treated combining surgery and chemotherapy, 1985-2005. Surg Oncol 2010;19:193-9.
9.	Ciccarese F, Bazzocchi A, Ciminari R, et al. The many faces of pulmonary metastases of osteosarcoma: Retrospective study on 283 lesions submitted to surgery. Eur J Radiol. 84(12):2679-85, 2015 Dec.
10.	Diemel KD, Klippe HJ, Branseheid D. Pulmonary metastasetomy for osteosarcoma: is it justified? Recent Results Cancer Res 2009;179:183-208.
11.	Kayton ML, Huvos AG, Casher J, et al. Computed tomographic scan of the chest underestimates the number of metastatic lesions in osteosarcoma. J Pediatr Surg. 41(1):200-6; discussion 200-6, 2006 Jan.
12.	Dudeck O, Zeile M, Andreou D, et al. Computed tomographic criteria for the discrimination of subcentimeter lung nodules in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Imaging. 35(3):174-9, 2011 May-Jun.
13.	Piperkova E, Mikhaeil M, Mousavi A, et al. Impact of PET and CT in PET/CT studies for staging and evaluating treatment response in bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Nucl Med. 34(3):146-50, 2009 Mar.
14.	Roberge D, Vakilian S, Alabed YZ, Turcotte RE, Freeman CR, Hickeson M. FDG PET/CT in Initial Staging of Adult Soft-Tissue Sarcoma. Sarcoma 2012;2012:960194.
15.	London K, Stege C, Cross S, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT compared to conventional imaging modalities in pediatric primary bone tumors. Pediatr Radiol. 42(4):418-30, 2012 Apr.
16.	Cistaro A, Lopci E, Gastaldo L, Fania P, Brach Del Prever A, Fagioli F. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the metabolic characterization of lung nodules in pediatric patients with bone sarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 59(7):1206-10, 2012 Dec 15.
17.	Platzek I, Beuthien-Baumann B, Schramm G, et al. FDG PET/MR in initial staging of sarcoma: Initial experience and comparison with conventional imaging. Clin Imaging. 42:126-132, 2017 Mar - Apr.
18.	Fuglo HM, Maretty-Nielsen K, Hovgaard D, Keller JO, Safwat AA, Petersen MM. Metastatic pattern, local relapse, and survival of patients with myxoid liposarcoma: a retrospective study of 45 patients. Sarcoma. 2013;2013:548628.
19.	Jha P, Frolich AM, McCarville B, et al. Unusual association of alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma with pancreatic metastasis: emerging role of PET-CT in tumor staging. Pediatr Radiol. 2010;40(8):1380-1386.
20.	Nishida Y, Tsukushi S, Urakawa H, et al. High incidence of regional and in-transit lymph node metastasis in patients with alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2014;19(3):536-543.
21.	Cotterill SJ, Ahrens S, Paulussen M, et al. Prognostic factors in Ewing's tumor of bone: analysis of 975 patients from the European Intergroup Cooperative Ewing's Sarcoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3108-14.
22.	Quartuccio N, Fox J, Kuk D, et al. Pediatric bone sarcoma: diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT versus conventional imaging for initial staging and follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 204(1):153-60, 2015 Jan.
23.	Chang CY, Gill CM, Joseph Simeone F, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 99 m-Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy and 18 F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of skeletal metastases. Acta Radiol. 57(1):58-65, 2016 Jan.
24.	Byun BH, Kong CB, Lim I, et al. Comparison of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and (99 m)Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastasis in osteosarcoma. Skeletal Radiol. 42(12):1673-81, 2013 Dec.
25.	Cook GJ, Houston S, Rubens R, Maisey MN, Fogelman I. Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:3375-9.
26.	Gallowitsch HJ, Kresnik E, Gasser J, et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography in the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma: a comparison to conventional imaging. Invest Radiol 2003;38:250-6.
27.	Huyge V, Garcia C, Vanderstappen A, Alexiou J, Gil T, Flamen P. Progressive osteoblastic bone metastases in breast cancer negative on FDG-PET. Clin Nucl Med 2009;34:417-20.
28.	Ozulker T, Kucukoz Uzun A, Ozulker F, Ozpacac T. Comparison of (18)F-FDG-PET/CT with (99m)Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in cancer patients. Nucl Med Commun. 31(6):597-603, 2010 Jun.
29.	Kalus S, Saifuddin A. Whole-body MRI vs bone scintigraphy in the staging of Ewing sarcoma of bone: a 12-year single-institution review. Eur Radiol. 29(10):5700-5708, 2019 Oct.
30.	Adusumilli P, Nejadhamzeeigilani H, Pitts K, et al. Protocol-driven multidetector SPECT/CT: integration of hybrid imaging into the routine workflow of whole-body bone scintigraphy in oncology patients. Clin Radiol. 75(1):79.e1-79.e7, 2020 01.
31.	Webb HR, Latifi HR, Griffeth LK. Utility of whole-body (head-to-toe) PET/CT in the evaluation of melanoma and sarcoma patients. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 39(1):68-73, 2018 Jan.
32.	Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, et al. Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA. 2003;290(24):3199-3206.
33.	Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM, et al. Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):229-236.
34.	Schmidt GP, Schoenberg SO, Schmid R, et al. Screening for bone metastases: whole-body MRI using a 32-channel system versus dual-modality PET-CT. Eur Radiol. 17(4):939-49, 2007 Apr.
35.	Bosma SE, Vriens D, Gelderblom H, van de Sande MAJ, Dijkstra PDS, Bloem JL. 18F-FDG PET-CT versus MRI for detection of skeletal metastasis in Ewing sarcoma. Skeletal Radiol. 48(11):1735-1746, 2019 Nov.
36.	Ricard F, Cimarelli S, Deshayes E, Mognetti T, Thiesse P, Giammarile F. Additional Benefit of F-18 FDG PET/CT in the staging and follow-up of pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2011;36(8):672-677.
37.	Volker T, Denecke T, Steffen I, et al. Positron emission tomography for staging of pediatric sarcoma patients: results of a prospective multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol. 25(34):5435-41, 2007 Dec 01.
38.	Eiber M, Takei T, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Performance of whole-body integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR in comparison to PET/CT for evaluation of malignant bone lesions. J Nucl Med. 55(2):191-7, 2014 Feb.
39.	Lofgren J, Mortensen J, Rasmussen SH, et al. A Prospective Study Comparing 99mTc-Hydroxyethylene-Diphosphonate Planar Bone Scintigraphy and Whole-Body SPECT/CT with 18F-Fluoride PET/CT and 18F-Fluoride PET/MRI for Diagnosing Bone Metastases. J Nucl Med. 58(11):1778-1785, 2017 11.
40.	Durr HR, Rauh J, Baur-Melnyk A, et al. Myxoid liposarcoma: local relapse and metastatic pattern in 43 patients. BMC Cancer 2018;18:304.
41.	Gorelik N, Reddy SMV, Turcotte RE, et al. Early detection of metastases using whole-body MRI for initial staging and routine follow-up of myxoid liposarcoma. Skeletal Radiol 2018;47:369-79.
42.	Gouin F, Renault A, Bertrand-Vasseur A, et al. Early detection of multiple bone and extra-skeletal metastases by body magnetic resonance imaging (BMRI) after treatment of Myxoid/Round-Cell Liposarcoma (MRCLS). Eur J Surg Oncol. 45(12):2431-2436, 2019 Dec.
43.	Noble JL, Moskovic E, Fisher C, Judson I. Imaging of skeletal metastases in myxoid liposarcoma. Sarcoma 2010;2010:262361.
44.	Stevenson JD, Watson JJ, Cool P, et al. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in myxoid liposarcoma: A useful adjunct for the detection of extra-pulmonary metastatic disease. Eur J Surg Oncol. 42(4):574-80, 2016 Apr.
45.	Gamboa AC, Ethun CG, Switchenko JM, et al. Lung Surveillance Strategy for High-Grade Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Chest X-Ray or CT Scan?. J Am Coll Surg. 229(5):449-457, 2019 11.
46.	Miller BJ, Carmody Soni EE, Reith JD, Gibbs CP, Scarborough MT. CT scans for pulmonary surveillance may be overused in lower-grade sarcoma. Iowa Orthop J. 2012;32:28-34.
47.	Rehders A, Hosch SB, Scheunemann P, Stoecklein NH, Knoefel WT, Peiper M. Benefit of surgical treatment of lung metastasis in soft tissue sarcoma. Arch Surg 2007;142:70-5; discission 76.
48.	Cipriano CA, Jang E, Tyler W. Sarcoma Surveillance: A Review of Current Evidence and Guidelines. [Review]. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 28(4):145-156, 2020 Feb 15.
49.	Dangoor A, Seddon B, Gerrand C, Grimer R, Whelan J, Judson I. UK guidelines for the management of soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Sarcoma Res 2016;6:20.
50.	Gerrand C, Athanasou N, Brennan B, et al. UK guidelines for the management of bone sarcomas. Clin Sarcoma Res 2016;6:7.
51.	ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group.. Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 25 Suppl 3:iii102-12, 2014 Sep.
52.	von Mehren M, Randall RL, Benjamin RS, et al. Soft Tissue Sarcoma, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw.. 16(5):536-563, 2018 05.
53.	Puri A, Ranganathan P, Gulia A, Crasto S, Hawaldar R, Badwe RA. Does a less intensive surveillance protocol affect the survival of patients after treatment of a sarcoma of the limb? updated results of the randomized TOSS study. Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:262-68.
54.	Puri A, Gulia A, Hawaldar R, Ranganathan P, Badwe RA. Does intensity of surveillance affect survival after surgery for sarcomas? Results of a randomized noninferiority trial. Clin Orthop. 472(5):1568-75, 2014 May.
55.	Rissing S, Rougraff BT, Davis K. Indeterminate pulmonary nodules in patients with sarcoma affect survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 459:118-121.
56.	Cho HS, Park IH, Jeong WJ, Han I, Kim HS. Prognostic value of computed tomography for monitoring pulmonary metastases in soft tissue sarcoma patients after surgical management: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18(12):3392-3398.
57.	Whooley BP, Gibbs JF, Mooney MM, McGrath BE, Kraybill WG. Primary extremity sarcoma: what is the appropriate follow-up? Ann Surg Oncol 2000;7:9-14.
58.	Bertrand TE, Cruz A, Binitie O, Cheong D, Letson GD. Do Surgical Margins Affect Local Recurrence and Survival in Extremity, Nonmetastatic, High-grade Osteosarcoma?. Clin Orthop. 474(3):677-83, 2016 Mar.
59.	Kasalak O, Dammann A, Adams HJA, et al. Surveillance MRI for the detection of locally recurrent Ewing sarcoma seems futile. Skeletal Radiol. 47(11):1517-1522, 2018 Nov.
60.	Takeuchi A, Lewis VO, Satcher RL, Moon BS, Lin PP. What are the factors that affect survival and relapse after local recurrence of osteosarcoma?. Clin Orthop. 472(10):3188-95, 2014 Oct.
61.	Wasilewski-Masker K, Liu Q, Yasui Y, et al. Late recurrence in pediatric cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1709-20.
62.	Bacci G, Longhi A, Ferrari S, et al. Pattern of relapse in 290 patients with nonmetastatic Ewing's sarcoma family tumors treated at a single institution with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 1972 and 1999. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006;32:974-9.
63.	Greenberg DD, Crawford B. Surveillance Strategies for Sarcoma: Results of a Survey of Members of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. Sarcoma 2016;2016:8289509.
64.	Sharma P, Khangembam BC, Suman KC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting recurrence in patients with primary skeletal Ewing sarcoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 40(7):1036-43, 2013 Jul.
65.	Vadi SK, Mittal BR, Gorla AKR, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT in Diagnostic and Prognostic Evaluation of Patients With Suspected Recurrence of Chondrosarcoma. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 43(2):87-93, 2018 Feb.
66.	Chang KJ, Kong CB, Cho WH, et al. Usefulness of increased 18F-FDG uptake for detecting local recurrence in patients with extremity osteosarcoma treated with surgical resection and endoprosthetic replacement. Skeletal Radiol. 44(4):529-37, 2015 Apr.
67.	Diana Afonso P, Kosinski AS, Spritzer CE. Following unenhanced MRI assessment for local recurrence after surgical resection of mesenchymal soft tissue tumors, do additional gadolinium-enhanced images change reader confidence or diagnosis?. Eur J Radiol. 82(5):806-13, 2013 May.
68.	Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD. The use of gadolinium in the MR evaluation of soft tissue tumors. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1997;18:251-68.
69.	Gronchi A, Lo Vullo S, Colombo C, et al. Extremity soft tissue sarcoma in a series of patients treated at a single institution: local control directly impacts survival. Ann Surg. 2010;251(3):506-511.
70.	Novais EN, Demiralp B, Alderete J, Larson MC, Rose PS, Sim FH. Do surgical margin and local recurrence influence survival in soft tissue sarcomas? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(11):3003-3011.
71.	Sabolch A, Feng M, Griffith K, et al. Risk factors for local recurrence and metastasis in soft tissue sarcomas of the extremity. Am J Clin Oncol. 2012;35(2):151-157.
72.	Salas S, Stoeckle E, Collin F, et al. Superficial soft tissue sarcomas (S-STS): a study of 367 patients from the French Sarcoma Group (FSG) database. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(12):2091-2102.
73.	Sugiura H, Nishida Y, Nakashima H, Yamada Y, Tsukushi S, Yamada K. Surgical procedures and prognostic factors for local recurrence of soft tissue sarcomas. J Orthop Sci. 19(1):141-9, 2014 Jan.
74.	Alamanda VK, Crosby SN, Archer KR, Song Y, Schwartz HS, Holt GE. Predictors and clinical significance of local recurrence in extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(4):793-802.
75.	Stojadinovic A, Leung DH, Allen P, Lewis JJ, Jaques DP, Brennan MF. Primary adult soft tissue sarcoma: time-dependent influence of prognostic variables. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4344-52.
76.	Rothermundt C, Whelan JS, Dileo P, et al. What is the role of routine follow-up for localised limb soft tissue sarcomas? A retrospective analysis of 174 patients. Br J Cancer. 110(10):2420-6, 2014 May 13.
77.	Park JW, Yoo HJ, Kim HS, et al. MRI surveillance for local recurrence in extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 45(2):268-274, 2019 02.
78.	Sawamura C, Matsumoto S, Shimoji T, Okawa A, Ae K. How long should we follow patients with soft tissue sarcomas? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:842-8.
79.	Al-Ibraheem A, Buck AK, Benz MR, et al. (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the detection of recurrent bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer. 119(6):1227-34, 2013 Mar 15.
80.	Park SY, Chung HW, Chae SY, Lee JS. Comparison of MRI and PET-CT in detecting the loco-regional recurrence of soft tissue sarcomas during surveillance. Skeletal Radiol. 45(10):1375-84, 2016 Oct.
81.	Erfanian Y, Grueneisen J, Kirchner J, et al. Integrated 18F-FDG PET/MRI compared to MRI alone for identification of local recurrences of soft tissue sarcomas: a comparison trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 44(11):1823-1831, 2017 Oct.
82.	Richardson K, Potter M, Damron TA. Image intensive soft tissue sarcoma surveillance uncovers pathology earlier than patient complaints but with frequent initially indeterminate lesions. J Surg Oncol. 113(7):818-22, 2016 Jun.
83.	Labarre D, Aziza R, Filleron T, et al. Detection of local recurrences of limb soft tissue sarcomas: is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) relevant?. Eur J Radiol. 72(1):50-3, 2009 Oct.
84.	Tagliafico A, Truini M, Spina B, et al. Follow-up of recurrences of limb soft tissue sarcomas in patients with localized disease: performance of ultrasound. Eur Radiol. 25(9):2764-70, 2015 Sep.
85.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.