Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Bone Positron Emission Tomography with or without CT Is More Accurate than Bone Scan for Detection of Bone Metastasis

  • Lee, Soo Jin (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Won Woo (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Sang Eun (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
  • Published : 2013.06.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: Na$^{18}F$ bone positron emission tomography (bone PET) is a new imaging modality which is useful for the evaluation of bone diseases. Here, we compared the diagnostic accuracies between bone PET and bone scan for the detection of bone metastasis (BM). Materials and Methods: Sixteen cancer patients (M:F = 10:6, mean age = 60 ${\pm}$ 12 years) who underwent both bone PET and bone scan were analyzed. Bone PET was conducted 30 minutes after the injection of 370 MBq Na$^{18}F$, and a bone scan was performed 3 hours after the injection of 1295 MBq $^{99m}Tc$-hydroxymethylene diphosphonate. Results: In the patient-based analysis (8 patients with BM and 8 without BM), the sensitivities of bone PET (100% = 8/8) and bone scan (87.5% = 7/8) were not significantly different (p > 0.05), whereas the specificity of bone PET (87.5% = 7/8) was significantly greater than that of the bone scan (25% = 2/8) (p < 0.05). In the lesion-based analysis (43 lesions in 14 patients; 31 malignant and 12 benign), the sensitivity of bone PET (100% = 31/31) was significantly greater than that of bone scan (38.7% = 12/31) (p < 0.01), and the specificity of bone PET (75.0% = 9/12) was also significantly higher than that of bone scan (8.3% = 1/12) (p < 0.05). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that bone PET was significantly more accurate than the bone scan in the patient (p = 0.0306) and lesion (p = 0.0001) based analyses. Conclusion: Na$^{18}F$ bone PET is more accurate than bone scan for BM evaluation.

Keywords

References

  1. Grant, FD, Fahey, FH, Packard, AB, Davis, RT, Alavi, A, Treves, ST,Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: applying new technology to an old tracer, J Nucl Med, 49, 1, 68-78(2008)
  2. Iagaru, A, Mittra, E, Dick, DW, Gambhir, SS,Prospective evaluation of (99m)Tc MDP scintigraphy, (18)F NaF PET/CT, and (18)F FDG PET/CT for detection of skeletal metastases, Mol Imaging Biol, 14, 2, 252-259(2012) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-011-0486-2
  3. Hoh, CK, Hawkins, RA, Dahlbom, M, Glaspy, JA, Seeger, LL, Choi, Y,Whole body skeletal imaging with [18F]fluoride ion and PET, J Comput Assist Tomogr, 17, 3, 34-41(1993) https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-199301000-00005
  4. Czernin, J, Satyamurthy, N, Schiepers, C,Molecular mechanisms of bone 18F-NaF deposition, J Nucl Med, 51, 4, 1826-1829(2010) https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.110.077933
  5. Blau, M, Nagler, W, Bender, MA,Fluorine-18: a new isotope for bone scanning, J Nucl Med, 3, 5, 332-334(1962)
  6. Thrall, JH,Technetium-99m labeled agents for skeletal imaging, CRC Crit Rev Clin Radiol Nucl Med, 8, 6, 1-31(1976)
  7. Hawkins, RA, Choi, Y, Huang, SC, Hoh, CK, Dahlbom, M, Schiepers, C,Evaluation of the skeletal kinetics of fluorine-18-fluoride ion with PET, J Nucl Med, 33, 7, 633-642(1992)
  8. Schirrmeister, H, Guhlmann, A, Elsner, K, Kotzerke, J, Glatting, G, Rentschler, M,Sensitivity in detecting osseous lesions depends on anatomic localization: planar bone scintigraphy versus 18F PET, J Nucl Med, 40, 8, 1623-1629(1999)
  9. Schirrmeister, H, Glatting, G, Hetzel, J, N체ssle, K, Arslandemir, C, Buck, AK,Prospective evaluation of the clinical value of planar bone scans, SPECT, and (18)F-labeled NaF PET in newly diagnosed lung cancer, J Nucl Med, 42, 9, 1800-1804(2001)
  10. Hetzel, M, Arslandemir, C, Konig, HH, Buck, AK, Nussle, K, Glatting, G,F-18 NaF PET for detection of bone metastases in lung cancer: accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and impact on patient management, J Bone Miner Res, 18, 10, 2206-2214(2003) https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.12.2206
  11. Messa, C, Goodman, WG, Hoh, CK, Choi, Y, Nissenson, AR, Salusky, IB,Bone metabolic activity measured with positron emission tomography and [18F]fluoride ion in renal osteodystrophy: correlation with bone histomorphometry, J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 77, 11, 949-955(1993)
  12. Installe, J, Nzeusseu, A, Bol, A, Depresseux, G, Devogelaer, JP, Lonneux, M,(18)F-fluoride PET for monitoring therapeutic response in Paget's disease of bone, J Nucl Med, 46, 12, 1650-1658(2005)
  13. Uchida, K, Nakajima, H, Miyazaki, T, Yayama, T, Kawahara, H, Kobayashi, S,Effects of alendronate on bone metabolism in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis measured by 18F-fluoride PET: a prospective study, J Nucl Med, 50, 13, 1808-1814(2009) https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.062570
  14. Kang, JY, Lee, WW, So, Y, Lee, BC, Kim, SE,Clinical Usefulness of 18F-fluoride Bone PET, Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 44, 14, 55-61(2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-009-0001-8
  15. Even-Sapir, E,Imaging of malignant bone involvement by morphologic, scintigraphic, and hybrid modalities, J Nucl Med, 46, 15, 1356-1367(2005)
  16. Even-Sapir, E, Metser, U, Mishani, E, Lievshitz, G, Lerman, H, Leibovitch, I,The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT, J Nucl Med, 47, 16, 287-297(2006)
  17. Schirrmeister, H, Guhlmann, A, Kotzerke, J, Santjohanser, C, K체hn, T, Kreienberg, R,Early detection and accurate description of extent of metastatic bone disease in breast cancer with fluoride ion and positron emission tomography, J Clin Oncol, 17, 17, 2381-2389(1999) https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1999.17.8.2381
  18. Schiepers, C, Nuyts, J, Bormans, G, Dequeker, J, Bouillon, R, Mortelmans, L,Fluoride kinetics of the axial skeleton measured in vivo with fluorine-18-fluoride PET, J Nucl Med, 38, 18, 1970-1976(1997)
  19. Cook, GJ, Blake, GM, Marsden, PK, Cronin, B, Fogelman, I,Quantification of skeletal kinetic indices in Paget's disease using dynamic 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography, J Bone Miner Res, 17, 19, 854-859(2002) https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.5.854
  20. Uematsu, T, Yuen, S, Yukisawa, S, Aramaki, T, Morimoto, N, Endo, M,Comparison of FDG PET and SPECT for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 184, 20, 1266-1273(2005) https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841266
  21. Ito, S, Kato, K, Ikeda, M, Iwano, S, Makino, N, Tadokoro, M,Comparison of 18F-FDG PET and bone scintigraphy in detection of bone metastases of thyroid cancer, J Nucl Med, 48, 21, 889-895(2007) https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.106.039479
  22. Langsteger, W, Heinisch, M, Fogelman, I,The role of fluorodeoxyglucose, 18F-dihydroxyphenylalanine, 18F-choline, and 18F-fluoride in bone imaging with emphasis on prostate and breast, Semin Nucl Med, 36, 22, 73-92(2006) https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2005.09.002

Cited by

  1. 18F-NaF PET/CT Findings in Fibrous Dysplasia vol.40, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000000948
  2. Recent Advances in Nuclear Cardiology vol.50, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-016-0433-x
  3. F-18 Sodium Fluoride Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Detection of Thyroid Cancer Bone Metastasis Compared with Bone Scintigraphy vol.17, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.2.281
  4. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? vol.17, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  5. Prospective Study Evaluating Na18F PET/CT in Predicting Clinical Outcomes and Survival in Advanced Prostate Cancer vol.57, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.166512
  6. Imaging of Myocardial Ischemia–Reperfusion Injury Using Sodium [ 18 F]Fluoride Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Rats and Humans vol.16, pp.None, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/1536012117704767
  7. Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal vol.18, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888
  8. The Future of Cardiac Molecular Imaging vol.50, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2020.02.005