PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of multi-slice-computed tomography (MDCT) for the detection of vertebral metastases in comparison to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, 639 vertebral bodies of 41 patients with various histologically confirmed primary malignancies were analysed. The MDCT-images were acquired on a 16/64-row-MDCT scanner (Siemens Somatom Sensation 16/64). MRI was performed on 1.5 T scanners (SIEMENS Symphony/Sonata). The MDCT- and MRI-images were evaluated separately by two experienced radiologists in a consensus reading. The combination of MDCT and MRI in an expert reading including follow-up examinations and/or histology as well as clinical data served as the gold standard. RESULTS: 201/639 vertebral bodies were defined as metastatically affected by the gold standard. In MDCT 133/201 lesions, in MRI 198/201 lesions were detected. 68 vertebral bodies were false negative in MDCT, whereas 3 false negatives were found in MRI. 3 false positive results were obtained in MDCT, 5 in MRI. Sensitivity was significantly lower for MDCT (66.2%) than for MRI (98.5%) (p<0.0001). Specificity was not significantly different for both methods (MDCT: 99.3%; MRI: 98.9%). The diagnostic accuracy resulted in 88.8% for MDCT and 98.7% for MRI. CONCLUSION: Although 16/64-row-MDCT provides excellent image quality and a high spatial resolution in the assessment of bony structures, metastatic lesions without significant bone destruction may be missed. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI proved to be significantly superior to 16/64-row-MDCT for the detection of osseous metastases.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of multi-slice-computed tomography (MDCT) for the detection of vertebral metastases in comparison to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, 639 vertebral bodies of 41 patients with various histologically confirmed primary malignancies were analysed. The MDCT-images were acquired on a 16/64-row-MDCT scanner (Siemens Somatom Sensation 16/64). MRI was performed on 1.5 T scanners (SIEMENS Symphony/Sonata). The MDCT- and MRI-images were evaluated separately by two experienced radiologists in a consensus reading. The combination of MDCT and MRI in an expert reading including follow-up examinations and/or histology as well as clinical data served as the gold standard. RESULTS: 201/639 vertebral bodies were defined as metastatically affected by the gold standard. In MDCT 133/201 lesions, in MRI 198/201 lesions were detected. 68 vertebral bodies were false negative in MDCT, whereas 3 false negatives were found in MRI. 3 false positive results were obtained in MDCT, 5 in MRI. Sensitivity was significantly lower for MDCT (66.2%) than for MRI (98.5%) (p<0.0001). Specificity was not significantly different for both methods (MDCT: 99.3%; MRI: 98.9%). The diagnostic accuracy resulted in 88.8% for MDCT and 98.7% for MRI. CONCLUSION: Although 16/64-row-MDCT provides excellent image quality and a high spatial resolution in the assessment of bony structures, metastatic lesions without significant bone destruction may be missed. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI proved to be significantly superior to 16/64-row-MDCT for the detection of osseous metastases.
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
Authors: D E Spratt; J R Osborne; Z S Zumsteg; K Rebeiz; J Leeman; A Rivera; M J Morris; M J Zelefsky Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Bernd Klaeser; Jakub Wiskirchen; Jan Wartenberg; Thilo Weitzel; Ralph A Schmid; Michel D Mueller; Thomas Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-08-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Giuseppe Roberto D'Agostino; Rosa Autorino; Angelo Pompucci; Maria Carmen De Santis; Stefania Manfrida; Giuseppe Di Lella; Giovanna Mantini; Vincenzo Frascino; Silvia Chiesa; Alessio Albanese; Nicola Dinapoli; Luigi Azario; Alba Fiorentino; Vincenzo Valentini; Carmelo Anile; Mario Balducci Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 3.621