UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between 18F-fluoride bone metabolic measures obtained by nonlinear regression (NLR), Patlak analysis, and standardized uptake value (SUV) for a wide range of normal and pathologic bone conditions. In patients imaged twice, changes in metabolic rates were determined using the different quantitation methods. METHODS: In 33 patients 2-51 mo after resection of a bone tumor of the limbs, a total of 42 dynamic PET scans were performed after injection of 250-350 MBq 18F-fluoride. SUV, fluoride bone influx rate obtained by Patlak analysis (KPat), and fluoride bone influx rate obtained by NLR (KNLR) were calculated in each patient for the bone graft, the contralateral normal side, and the spine, if within the field of view. RESULTS: SUV ranged from 0.4 to 9.9, KPat from 0.0035 to 0.0742 mL/min/mL, and KNLR from 0.0027 to 0.0737 mL/min/mL. Significant linear correlations were found between KPat and KNLR (r = 0.99), KPat and SUV (r = 0.95), and KNLR and SUV (r = 0.93). Eight patients have been imaged twice within 6 mo. Changes in metabolic values of the grafts were significantly correlated for KPat and KNLR (r = 0.96), KPat and SUV (r = 0.88), and KNLR and SUV (r = 0.79). The 95% ranges of normal change in limb bones were +/-58.0% for SUV, +/-23.0% for KPat, and +/-20.2% for KNLR; the corresponding 95% ranges in the spine were +/-8.6%, +/-7.6%, and +/-19.6%. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that 18F-fluoride metabolic values as well as changes in bone metabolism measured by SUV and Patlak analysis were strongly correlated with NLR findings. The high 95% range of normal change of SUV in limb bones, however, indicates that this parameter is of limited value in areas with low metabolic activity. The range of spontaneous bone metabolic rate fluctuations presented in this study may be used as an estimate for assessing changes in bone metabolic activity, and the normal values for limb bones provide a basis for further studies on 18F-fluoride bone metabolism.
UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between 18F-fluoride bone metabolic measures obtained by nonlinear regression (NLR), Patlak analysis, and standardized uptake value (SUV) for a wide range of normal and pathologic bone conditions. In patients imaged twice, changes in metabolic rates were determined using the different quantitation methods. METHODS: In 33 patients 2-51 mo after resection of a bone tumor of the limbs, a total of 42 dynamic PET scans were performed after injection of 250-350 MBq 18F-fluoride. SUV, fluoride bone influx rate obtained by Patlak analysis (KPat), and fluoride bone influx rate obtained by NLR (KNLR) were calculated in each patient for the bone graft, the contralateral normal side, and the spine, if within the field of view. RESULTS: SUV ranged from 0.4 to 9.9, KPat from 0.0035 to 0.0742 mL/min/mL, and KNLR from 0.0027 to 0.0737 mL/min/mL. Significant linear correlations were found between KPat and KNLR (r = 0.99), KPat and SUV (r = 0.95), and KNLR and SUV (r = 0.93). Eight patients have been imaged twice within 6 mo. Changes in metabolic values of the grafts were significantly correlated for KPat and KNLR (r = 0.96), KPat and SUV (r = 0.88), and KNLR and SUV (r = 0.79). The 95% ranges of normal change in limb bones were +/-58.0% for SUV, +/-23.0% for KPat, and +/-20.2% for KNLR; the corresponding 95% ranges in the spine were +/-8.6%, +/-7.6%, and +/-19.6%. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that 18F-fluoride metabolic values as well as changes in bone metabolism measured by SUV and Patlak analysis were strongly correlated with NLR findings. The high 95% range of normal change of SUV in limb bones, however, indicates that this parameter is of limited value in areas with low metabolic activity. The range of spontaneous bone metabolic rate fluctuations presented in this study may be used as an estimate for assessing changes in bone metabolic activity, and the normal values for limb bones provide a basis for further studies on 18F-fluoride bone metabolism.
Authors: Jérôme J Waterval; Thijs M A Van Dongen; Robert J Stokroos; Jaap G J Teule; Gerrit J Kemerink; Boudewijn Brans; Fred H M Nieman; Johannes J Manni Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Musib Siddique; Glen M Blake; Michelle L Frost; Amelia E B Moore; Tanuj Puri; Paul K Marsden; Ignac Fogelman Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: T Puri; M L Frost; K M Curran; M Siddique; A E B Moore; G J R Cook; P K Marsden; I Fogelman; G M Blake Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2012-05-12 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Arman Rahmim; Martin A Lodge; Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Vladimir Y Panin; Yun Zhou; Alan McMillan; Steve Cho; Habib Zaidi; Michael E Casey; Richard L Wahl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: N W Jenkins; J F Talbott; V Shah; P Pandit; Y Seo; W P Dillon; S Majumdar Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Caixia Cheng; Christian Heiss; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; P Govindarajan; G Schlewitz; Leyun Pan; Reinhard Schnettler; Klaus Weber; Ludwig G Strauss Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-03-08
Authors: Alejandro Sanchez-Crespo; Frederik Christiansson; Charlotte Karlsson Thur; Henrik Lundblad; Anders Sundin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-07-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christie Lin; Tyler Bradshaw; Timothy Perk; Stephanie Harmon; Jens Eickhoff; Ngoneh Jallow; Peter L Choyke; William L Dahut; Steven Larson; John Laurence Humm; Scott Perlman; Andrea B Apolo; Michael J Morris; Glenn Liu; Robert Jeraj Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 10.057