Literature DB >> 21530193

Bone metastases: assessment of therapeutic response through radiological and nuclear medicine imaging modalities.

V Vassiliou1, D Andreopoulos, S Frangos, N Tselis, E Giannopoulou, S Lutz.   

Abstract

Radiological and nuclear medicine imaging modalities used for assessing bone metastases treatment response include plain and digitalised radiography (XR), skeletal scintigraphy (SS), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and PET/CT. Here we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these assessment modalities as evident through different clinical trials. Additionally, we present the more established response criteria of the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization and compare them with newer MD Anderson criteria. Even though serial XR and SS have been used to assess the therapeutic response for decades, several months are required before changes are evident. Newer techniques, such as MRI or PET, may allow an earlier evaluation of response that may be quantified through monitoring changes in signal intensity and standard uptake value, respectively. Moreover, the application of PET/CT, which can follow both morphological and metabolic changes, has yielded interesting and promising results that give a new insight into the natural history of metastatic bone disease. However, only a few studies have investigated the application of these newer techniques and further clinical trials are needed to corroborate their promising results and establish the most suitable imaging parameters and evaluation time points. Last, but not least, there is an absolute need to adopt uniform response criteria for bone metastases through an international consensus in order to better assess treatment response in terms of accuracy and objectivity.
Copyright © 2011 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21530193     DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2011.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)        ISSN: 0936-6555            Impact factor:   4.126


  11 in total

Review 1.  Imaging of bone metastasis: An update.

Authors:  Gerard J O'Sullivan; Fiona L Carty; Carmel G Cronin
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2015-08-28

2.  A comparative study of whole body DWIBS MRI versus bone scan for evaluating skeletal metastases.

Authors:  Sg Gandage; Sg Kachewar; Vd Aironi; Ad Nagapurkar
Journal:  Australas Med J       Date:  2012-12-31

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

Review 4.  [Imaging diagnostics in bone metastases].

Authors:  L Kintzelé; M-A Weber
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 5.  The diagnostic imaging of bone metastases.

Authors:  Walter Heindel; Raphael Gübitz; Volker Vieth; Matthias Weckesser; Otmar Schober; Michael Schäfers
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 5.594

6.  Treatment response evaluation with 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT in multiple myeloma patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation.

Authors:  Christos Sachpekidis; J Hillengass; H Goldschmidt; B Wagner; U Haberkorn; K Kopka; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound for the treatment of painful bone metastases: role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI in the assessment of clinical outcome.

Authors:  Michele Anzidei; Alessandro Napoli; Beatrice Sacconi; Fabrizio Boni; Vincenzo Noce; Michele Di Martino; Luca Saba; Carlo Catalano
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2016-08-27       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 8.  The effects of metastatic lesion on the structural determinants of bone: Current clinical and experimental approaches.

Authors:  Stacyann Bailey; David Hackney; Deepak Vashishth; Ron N Alkalay
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 4.398

9.  Mandibular metastasis as an initial manifestation of hepatocellular carcinoma: A report of two cases.

Authors:  Chunhua DU; Yuanyong Feng; Ningyi Li; Ke Wang; Shuangyi Wang; Zhenhua Gao
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2015-01-12       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 10.  Detecting Tumor Metastases: The Road to Therapy Starts Here.

Authors:  M E Menezes; S K Das; I Minn; L Emdad; X-Y Wang; D Sarkar; M G Pomper; P B Fisher
Journal:  Adv Cancer Res       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 6.242

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.