Literature DB >> 22227259

Detection of metastatic bone lesions in breast cancer patients: fused (18)F-Fluoride-PET/MDCT has higher accuracy than MDCT. Preliminary experience.

Arnoldo Piccardo1, Vania Altrinetti, Lorenzo Bacigalupo, Matteo Puntoni, Ennio Biscaldi, Alberto Gozza, Manlio Cabria, Massimiliano Iacozzi, Ambra Pasa, Silvia Morbelli, Giampiero Villavecchia, Andrea DeCensi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: So far, no studies comparing (18)F-Fluoride-PET/CT and MDCT for the detection of bone metastases are available. We compared the accuracy of (18)F-Fluoride-PET/CT (MDCT: 3.75 mm thickness-image-reconstruction), whole-body Multi-Detector-CT (MDCT: 1.25 mm thickness-image-reconstruction) and (18)F-Fluoride-PET/MDCT (MDCT: 1.25 mm thickness-image-reconstruction) in identifying bone metastases in breast cancer patients.
METHODS: We studied 39 breast cancer patients for bone metastases. Imaging was performed on an integrated PET/MDCT-system; CT images were reconstructed at 3.75 mm and 1.25 mm thickness. Two nuclear medicine physicians and one radiologist interpreted blindly (18)F-Fluoride-PET/CT, (18)F-Fluoride-PET/MDCT and MDCT. MDCT at 12 months served as the standard of reference.
RESULTS: Overall, 662 bone lesions were detected in our analysis. Of these, 542 were malignant and 120 were benign according to the standard of reference. (18)F-Fluoride-PET/CT detected 491 bone metastases, 114 (23%) of which displayed no clear morphological changes on MDCT, whereas MDCT detected 416 bone metastases, 39 (9.3%) of which showed no (18)F-Fluoride-PET uptake. Overall sensitivity and specificity were: 91% and 91%, respectively, for (18)F-Fluoride-PET/CT, and 77% and 93% for MDCT. The integrated assessment of (18)F-Fluoride-PET/MDCT yielded sensitivity and specificity values of 98% and 93%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-Fluoride-PET/MDCT has higher diagnostic accuracy than (18)F-Fluoride-PET/CT and MDCT for the evaluation of bone metastases in breast cancer.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22227259     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.12.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  10 in total

1.  Critical considerations on the combined use of ¹⁸F-FDG and ¹⁸F-fluoride for PET assessment of metastatic bone disease.

Authors:  Gang Cheng; Thomas C Kwee; Sandip Basu; Abass Alavi
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Oncology.

Authors:  Andrea Gallamini; Colette Zwarthoed; Anna Borra
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 6.639

3.  Comparisons between glucose analogue 2-deoxy-2-((18)F)fluoro-D-glucose and (18)F-sodium fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography in breast cancer patients with bone lesions.

Authors:  Selene Capitanio; Francesca Bongioanni; Arnoldo Piccardo; Claudio Campus; Roberta Gonella; Lucia Tixi; Mehrdad Naseri; Michele Pennone; Vania Altrinetti; Ambra Buschiazzo; Irene Bossert; Francesco Fiz; Andrea Bruno; Andrea DeCensi; Gianmario Sambuceti; Silvia Morbelli
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2016-02-28

Review 4.  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

5.  Sodium 18F-fluoride PET/CT of bone, joint, and other disorders.

Authors:  Hossein Jadvar; Bhushan Desai; Peter S Conti
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.446

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of non-contrast abdominopelvic computed tomography scans in follow-up of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Sang Yu Nam; Su Joa Ahn; Young Rock Jang; Yong Soon Chun; Heung Kyu Park; Seung Joon Choi; Hye Young Choi; Jeong Ho Kim
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 7.  Comparison of 18 F-NaF Imaging, 99m Tc-MDP Scintigraphy, and 18 F-FDG for Detecting Bone Metastases.

Authors:  Habibollah Dadgar; Nasim Norouzbeigi; Narges Jokar; Jafar Zareizadeh; Ali Gholamrezanezhad; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Moloud Abbaszadeh; Majid Assadi
Journal:  World J Nucl Med       Date:  2022-04-30

8.  A Prospective Study Comparing the Role of 18 FDG PET-CT with Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Tc99m Bone Scan for Staging Locally Advanced Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Sandeep Bhoriwal; S V S Deo; Rakesh Kumar; Sanjay Thulkar; Ajay Gogia; D N Sharma; Sandeep Mathur
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-03-02

Review 9.  Multimodal imaging of bone metastases: From preclinical to clinical applications.

Authors:  Stephan Ellmann; Michael Beck; Torsten Kuwert; Michael Uder; Tobias Bäuerle
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  FDG avid breast cancer bone metastases silent on CT and scintigraphy: a case report with radiologic-pathologic correlation.

Authors:  Daniel Jeong; Marilyn Bui; Daniel Peterson; Jaime Montilla-Soler; Kenneth L Gage
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2017-10-06
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.