INTRODUCTION: Technetium (Tc) methylene diphosphonate (MDP) has been the standard method for bone scintigraphy for three decades. (18)F sodium fluoride ((18)F NaF) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) has better resolution and is considered superior. The role of 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose ((18)F FDG) PET/CT is proven in a variety of cancers, for which it has changed the practice of oncology. There are few prospective studies comparing these three methods of detection of skeletal metastases. Thus, we were prompted to initiate this prospective pilot trial. METHODS: This is a prospective study (Sep 2007-Dec 2010) of 52 patients with proven malignancy referred for evaluation of skeletal metastases. There were 37 men and 15 women, 19-84 years old (average, 55.6 ± 15.9). Technetium-99m ((99m)Tc) MDP bone scintigraphy, (18)F NaF PET/CT, and (18)F FDG PET/CT were subsequently performed within 1 month. RESULTS: Skeletal lesions were detected by (99m)Tc MDP bone scintigraphy in 22 of 52 patients, by (18)F NaF PET/CT in 24 of 52 patients, and by (18)F FDG PET/CT in 16 of 52 patients. The image quality and evaluation of extent of disease were superior by (18)F NaF PET/CT over (99m)Tc MDP scintigraphy in all 22 patients with skeletal lesions on both scans and over (18)F FDG PET/CT in 11 of 16 patients with skeletal metastases on (18)F FDG PET/CT. In two patients, (18)F NaF PET/CT showed skeletal metastases not seen on either of the other two scans. Extraskeletal lesions were identified by (18)F FDG PET/CT in 28 of 52 subjects. CONCLUSION: Our prospective pilot-phase trial demonstrates superior image quality and evaluation of skeletal disease extent with (18)F NaF PET/CT over (99m)Tc MDP scintigraphy and (18)F FDG PET/CT. At the same time, (18)F FDG PET detects extraskeletal disease that can significantly change disease management. As such, a combination of (18)F FDG PET/CT and (18)F NaF PET/CT may be necessary for cancer detection. Additional evaluation with larger cohorts is required to confirm these preliminary findings.
INTRODUCTION:Technetium (Tc) methylene diphosphonate (MDP) has been the standard method for bone scintigraphy for three decades. (18)F sodium fluoride ((18)F NaF) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) has better resolution and is considered superior. The role of 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose ((18)F FDG) PET/CT is proven in a variety of cancers, for which it has changed the practice of oncology. There are few prospective studies comparing these three methods of detection of skeletal metastases. Thus, we were prompted to initiate this prospective pilot trial. METHODS: This is a prospective study (Sep 2007-Dec 2010) of 52 patients with proven malignancy referred for evaluation of skeletal metastases. There were 37 men and 15 women, 19-84 years old (average, 55.6 ± 15.9). Technetium-99m ((99m)Tc) MDP bone scintigraphy, (18)F NaF PET/CT, and (18)F FDG PET/CT were subsequently performed within 1 month. RESULTS: Skeletal lesions were detected by (99m)TcMDP bone scintigraphy in 22 of 52 patients, by (18)F NaF PET/CT in 24 of 52 patients, and by (18)F FDG PET/CT in 16 of 52 patients. The image quality and evaluation of extent of disease were superior by (18)F NaF PET/CT over (99m)TcMDP scintigraphy in all 22 patients with skeletal lesions on both scans and over (18)F FDG PET/CT in 11 of 16 patients with skeletal metastases on (18)F FDG PET/CT. In two patients, (18)F NaF PET/CT showed skeletal metastases not seen on either of the other two scans. Extraskeletal lesions were identified by (18)F FDG PET/CT in 28 of 52 subjects. CONCLUSION: Our prospective pilot-phase trial demonstrates superior image quality and evaluation of skeletal disease extent with (18)F NaF PET/CT over (99m)TcMDP scintigraphy and (18)F FDG PET/CT. At the same time, (18)F FDG PET detects extraskeletal disease that can significantly change disease management. As such, a combination of (18)F FDG PET/CT and (18)F NaF PET/CT may be necessary for cancer detection. Additional evaluation with larger cohorts is required to confirm these preliminary findings.
Authors: H Schirrmeister; G Glatting; J Hetzel; K Nüssle; C Arslandemir; A K Buck; K Dziuk; A Gabelmann; S N Reske; M Hetzel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 10.057
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
Authors: Ida Sonni; Ryogo Minamimoto; Lucia Baratto; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Andreas M Loening; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Andrei Iagaru Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Alison R Roth; Stephanie A Harmon; Timothy G Perk; Jens Eickhoff; Peter L Choyke; Karen A Kurdziel; William L Dahut; Andrea B Apolo; Michael J Morris; Scott B Perlman; Glenn Liu; Robert Jeraj Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Andrei Iagaru; Camila Mosci; David W Dick; Mike Sathekge; Paula Lapa; Joao M de Lima; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-09-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Randi F Fonager; Helle D Zacho; Niels C Langkilde; Joan Fledelius; June A Ejlersen; Christian Haarmark; Helle W Hendel; Mine Benedicte Lange; Mads R Jochumsen; Jesper C Mortensen; Lars J Petersen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-01
Authors: M Beheshti; F M Mottaghy; F Paycha; F F F Behrendt; T Van den Wyngaert; I Fogelman; K Strobel; M Celli; S Fanti; F Giammarile; B Krause; W Langsteger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-23 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