Literature DB >> 16402253

Can 16-detector multislice CT exclude skeletal lesions during tumour staging? Implications for the cancer patient.

Ashley M Groves1, Clare J Beadsmoore, Heok K Cheow, Kottekkattu K Balan, Helen M Courtney, Stephen Kaptoge, Thida Win, Srinivasan Harish, Philip W P Bearcroft, Adrian K Dixon.   

Abstract

Current imaging guidelines recommend that many cancer patients undergo soft-tissue staging by computed tomography (CT) whilst the bones are imaged by skeletal scintigraphy (bone scan). New CT technology has now made it feasible, for the first time, to perform a detailed whole-body skeletal CT. This advancement could save patients from having to undergo duplicate investigations. Forty-three patients with known malignancy were investigated for bone metastasis using skeletal scintigraphy and 16-detector multislice CT. Both studies were performed within six weeks of each other. Whole-body images were taken 4 h after injection of 500 Mbq (99m)Tc-MDP using a gamma camera. CT was performed on a 16-detector multislice CT machine from the vertex to the knee. The examinations were reported independently and discordant results were compared at follow-up. Statistical equivalence between the two techniques was tested using the Newcombe-Wilson method within the pre-specified equivalence limits of +/-20%. Scintigraphy detected bone metastases in 14/43 and CT in 13/43 patients. There were seven discordances; four cases were positive on scintigraphy, but negative on CT; three cases were positive on CT and negative on scintigraphy. There was equivalence between scintigraphy and CT in detecting bone metastases within +/-19% equivalence limits. Patients who have undergone full whole-body staging on 16-detector CT may not need additional skeletal scintigraphy. This should shorten the cancer patient's diagnostic pathway.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16402253     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-005-0042-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  13 in total

Review 1.  Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: techniques, clinical indications, and future applications.

Authors:  R E Walker; S J Eustace
Journal:  Semin Musculoskelet Radiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 1.777

2.  Three-dimensional volumetric interpolated breath-hold MR imaging for whole-body tumor staging in less than 15 minutes: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Thomas C Lauenstein; Susanne C Goehde; Christoph U Herborn; Wiebke Treder; Stefan G Ruehm; Jörg F Debatin; Jörg Barkhausen
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Whole body magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Stephen J Eustace; Erik Nelson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-12

4.  Improved confidence intervals for the difference between binomial proportions based on paired data.

Authors:  R G Newcombe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-11-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Comparison of FDG PET and SPECT for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer.

Authors:  Takayoshi Uematsu; Sachiko Yuen; Seigo Yukisawa; Takeshi Aramaki; Naoki Morimoto; Masahiro Endo; Hiroyoshi Furukawa; Yoshihiro Uchida; Junichiro Watanabe
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  The role of positron emission tomography in the management of bone metastases.

Authors:  G J Cook; I Fogelman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 7.  Exposure of critical groups to nuclear medicine patients.

Authors:  P J Mountford; M J O'Doherty
Journal:  Appl Radiat Isot       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 1.513

8.  Whole-body MR imaging: evaluation of patients for metastases.

Authors:  Thomas C Lauenstein; Susanne C Goehde; Christoph U Herborn; Matthias Goyen; Carsten Oberhoff; Jörg F Debatin; Stefan G Ruehm; Jörg Barkhausen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-08-18       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  F-18 NaF PET for detection of bone metastases in lung cancer: accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and impact on patient management.

Authors:  Martin Hetzel; Coskun Arslandemir; Hans-Helmut König; Andreas K Buck; Karin Nüssle; Gerhard Glatting; Andreas Gabelmann; Jürgen Hetzel; Vinzenz Hombach; Holger Schirrmeister
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 10.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.

Authors:  Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-01-07       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  16 in total

1.  Bone scintigraphy is really unnecessary for evaluation of bone metastasis?

Authors:  Tadaki Nakahara; Takayuki Suzuki; Naoto Kitamura; Atsushi Kubo
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-05-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Diagnosis of bone metastases: a meta-analysis comparing ¹⁸FDG PET, CT, MRI and bone scintigraphy.

Authors:  Hui-Lin Yang; Tao Liu; Xi-Ming Wang; Yong Xu; Sheng-Ming Deng
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-02       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  MRI for response assessment in metastatic bone disease.

Authors:  F E Lecouvet; A Larbi; V Pasoglou; P Omoumi; B Tombal; N Michoux; J Malghem; R Lhommel; B C Vande Berg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Role of whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI in detecting bone metastasis.

Authors:  Riccardo Del Vescovo; Giulia Frauenfelder; Francesco Giurazza; Claudia Lucia Piccolo; Roberto Luigi Cazzato; Rosario Francesco Grasso; Emiliano Schena; Bruno Beomonte Zobel
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 3.469

5.  Utility of postmortem autopsy via whole-body imaging: initial observations comparing MDCT and 3.0 T MRI findings with autopsy findings.

Authors:  Jang Gyu Cha; Dong Hun Kim; Dae Ho Kim; Sang Hyun Paik; Jai Soung Park; Seong Jin Park; Hae Kyung Lee; Hyun Sook Hong; Duek Lin Choi; Kyung Moo Yang; Nak Eun Chung; Bong Woo Lee; Joong Seok Seo
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2010-06-21       Impact factor: 3.500

6.  VALIDATION OF THERAPEUTIC RESPONSE ASSESSMENT BY BONE SCINTIGRAPHY IN PATIENTS WITH BONE-ONLY METASTATIC BREAST CANCERS DURING ZOLEDRONIC ACID TREATMENT: COMPARISON WITH COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY ASSESSMENT.

Authors:  Shirou Ishii; Ken Kikuchi; Masayuki Miyajima; Kotaro Sakuma; Fumio Shishido
Journal:  Fukushima J Med Sci       Date:  2015-05-03

7.  Screening for bone metastases: whole-body MRI using a 32-channel system versus dual-modality PET-CT.

Authors:  Gerwin P Schmidt; Stefan O Schoenberg; Rupert Schmid; Robert Stahl; Reinhold Tiling; Christoph R Becker; Maximilian F Reiser; Andrea Baur-Melnyk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-09-02       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  The role of staging Computed Tomography on detection of occult metastasis in asymptomatic breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Chrishanthi Rajasooriyar; Thamayanthy Sritharan; Suvithra Chenthuran; Kavitha Indranath; Rajendra Surenthirakumaran
Journal:  Cancer Rep (Hoboken)       Date:  2020-05-07

9.  Temporal Subtraction of Serial CT Images with Large Deformation Diffeomorphic Metric Mapping in the Identification of Bone Metastases.

Authors:  Ryo Sakamoto; Masahiro Yakami; Koji Fujimoto; Keita Nakagomi; Takeshi Kubo; Yutaka Emoto; Thai Akasaka; Gakuto Aoyama; Hiroyuki Yamamoto; Michael I Miller; Susumu Mori; Kaori Togashi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Radiological staging in breast cancer: which asymptomatic patients to image and how.

Authors:  T Barrett; D J Bowden; D C Greenberg; C H Brown; G C Wishart; P D Britton
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.