Zhen Zhao1, Lin Li, Fanglan Li, Lixia Zhao. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and The National Key Discipline of Medical Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China. zhaozheni@yahoo.cn
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/spiral computed tomography (CT) fusion imaging for the diagnosis of bone metastasis in patients with known cancer and to compare the diagnostic efficacy of SPECT/CT fusion imaging with that of SPECT alone and with SPECT + CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-one bone lesions of 125 cancer patients (with nonspecific bone findings on bone scintigraphy) were investigated in the study. SPECT, CT, and SPECT/CT fusion images were acquired simultaneously. All images were interpreted independently by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians. In cases of discrepancy, consensus was obtained by a joint reading. The final diagnosis was based on biopsy proof and radiologic follow-up over at least 1 year. RESULTS: The final diagnosis revealed 63 malignant bone lesions and 78 benign lesions. The diagnostic sensitivity of SPECT, SPECT + CT, and SPECT/CT fusion imaging for malignant lesions was 82.5%, 93.7%, and 98.4%, respectively. Specificity was 66.7%, 80.8%, and 93.6%, respectively. Accuracy was 73.8%, 86.5%, and 95.7%, respectively. The specificity and accuracy of SPECT/CT fusion imaging for the diagnosis malignant bone lesions were significantly higher than those of SPECT alone and of SPECT + CT (P < 0.05). Among 37 equivocal lesions revealed with SPECT, the diagnostic accuracy of bone lesions was 45.9% for SPECT + CT and 81.1% for SPECT/CT fusion imaging (chi(2) = 9.855, P = 0.002). The numbers of equivocal lesions were 37, 18, and 5 for SPECT, SPECT + CT, and SPECT/CT fusion imaging, respectively, and 29.7% (11/37), 27.8% (5/18), and 20.0% (1/5) of lesions were confirmed to be malignant by radiologic follow-up over at least 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: SPECT/spiral CT is particularly valuable for the diagnosis of bone metastasis in patients with known cancer by providing precise anatomic localization and detailed morphologic characteristics.
PURPOSE: To evaluate single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/spiral computed tomography (CT) fusion imaging for the diagnosis of bone metastasis in patients with known cancer and to compare the diagnostic efficacy of SPECT/CT fusion imaging with that of SPECT alone and with SPECT + CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-one bone lesions of 125 cancerpatients (with nonspecific bone findings on bone scintigraphy) were investigated in the study. SPECT, CT, and SPECT/CT fusion images were acquired simultaneously. All images were interpreted independently by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians. In cases of discrepancy, consensus was obtained by a joint reading. The final diagnosis was based on biopsy proof and radiologic follow-up over at least 1 year. RESULTS: The final diagnosis revealed 63 malignant bone lesions and 78 benign lesions. The diagnostic sensitivity of SPECT, SPECT + CT, and SPECT/CT fusion imaging for malignant lesions was 82.5%, 93.7%, and 98.4%, respectively. Specificity was 66.7%, 80.8%, and 93.6%, respectively. Accuracy was 73.8%, 86.5%, and 95.7%, respectively. The specificity and accuracy of SPECT/CT fusion imaging for the diagnosis malignant bone lesions were significantly higher than those of SPECT alone and of SPECT + CT (P < 0.05). Among 37 equivocal lesions revealed with SPECT, the diagnostic accuracy of bone lesions was 45.9% for SPECT + CT and 81.1% for SPECT/CT fusion imaging (chi(2) = 9.855, P = 0.002). The numbers of equivocal lesions were 37, 18, and 5 for SPECT, SPECT + CT, and SPECT/CT fusion imaging, respectively, and 29.7% (11/37), 27.8% (5/18), and 20.0% (1/5) of lesions were confirmed to be malignant by radiologic follow-up over at least 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: SPECT/spiral CT is particularly valuable for the diagnosis of bone metastasis in patients with known cancer by providing precise anatomic localization and detailed morphologic characteristics.
Authors: Charito Love; Anabella S Din; Maria B Tomas; Tomy P Kalapparambath; Christopher J Palestro Journal: Radiographics Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Paul J Roach; Geoffrey P Schembri; Ivan A Ho Shon; Elizabeth A Bailey; Dale L Bailey Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Stephanie N Histed; Maria L Lindenberg; Esther Mena; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Karen A Kurdziel Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Matthew S Manganaro; John D Millet; Richard Kj Brown; Benjamin L Viglianti; Daniel J Wale; Ka Kit Wong Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: H Palmedo; C Marx; A Ebert; B Kreft; Y Ko; A Türler; R Vorreuther; U Göhring; H H Schild; T Gerhardt; U Pöge; S Ezziddin; H-J Biersack; H Ahmadzadehfar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-08-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ora Israel; O Pellet; L Biassoni; D De Palma; E Estrada-Lobato; G Gnanasegaran; T Kuwert; C la Fougère; G Mariani; S Massalha; D Paez; F Giammarile Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 9.236