Soo Jin Lee1, Won Woo Lee, Sang Eun Kim. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam 463-707, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Na(18)F bone positron emission tomography (bone PET) is a new imaging modality which is useful for the evaluation of bone diseases. Here, we compared the diagnostic accuracies between bone PET and bone scan for the detection of bone metastasis (BM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen cancer patients (M:F = 10:6, mean age = 60 ± 12 years) who underwent both bone PET and bone scan were analyzed. Bone PET was conducted 30 minutes after the injection of 370 MBq Na(18)F, and a bone scan was performed 3 hours after the injection of 1295 MBq (99m)Tc-hydroxymethylene diphosphonate. RESULTS: In the patient-based analysis (8 patients with BM and 8 without BM), the sensitivities of bone PET (100% = 8/8) and bone scan (87.5% = 7/8) were not significantly different (p > 0.05), whereas the specificity of bone PET (87.5% = 7/8) was significantly greater than that of the bone scan (25% = 2/8) (p < 0.05). In the lesion-based analysis (43 lesions in 14 patients; 31 malignant and 12 benign), the sensitivity of bone PET (100% = 31/31) was significantly greater than that of bone scan (38.7% = 12/31) (p < 0.01), and the specificity of bone PET (75.0% = 9/12) was also significantly higher than that of bone scan (8.3% = 1/12) (p < 0.05). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that bone PET was significantly more accurate than the bone scan in the patient (p = 0.0306) and lesion (p = 0.0001) based analyses. CONCLUSION: Na(18)F bone PET is more accurate than bone scan for BM evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: Na(18)F bone positron emission tomography (bone PET) is a new imaging modality which is useful for the evaluation of bone diseases. Here, we compared the diagnostic accuracies between bone PET and bone scan for the detection of bone metastasis (BM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen cancerpatients (M:F = 10:6, mean age = 60 ± 12 years) who underwent both bone PET and bone scan were analyzed. Bone PET was conducted 30 minutes after the injection of 370 MBq Na(18)F, and a bone scan was performed 3 hours after the injection of 1295 MBq (99m)Tc-hydroxymethylene diphosphonate. RESULTS: In the patient-based analysis (8 patients with BM and 8 without BM), the sensitivities of bone PET (100% = 8/8) and bone scan (87.5% = 7/8) were not significantly different (p > 0.05), whereas the specificity of bone PET (87.5% = 7/8) was significantly greater than that of the bone scan (25% = 2/8) (p < 0.05). In the lesion-based analysis (43 lesions in 14 patients; 31 malignant and 12 benign), the sensitivity of bone PET (100% = 31/31) was significantly greater than that of bone scan (38.7% = 12/31) (p < 0.01), and the specificity of bone PET (75.0% = 9/12) was also significantly higher than that of bone scan (8.3% = 1/12) (p < 0.05). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that bone PET was significantly more accurate than the bone scan in the patient (p = 0.0306) and lesion (p = 0.0001) based analyses. CONCLUSION: Na(18)F bone PET is more accurate than bone scan for BM evaluation.
Entities:
Keywords:
99mTc-HDP; Bone metastasis; Bone scan; Na18F; Positron emission tomography; Positron emission tomography/computed tomography
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: C K Hoh; R A Hawkins; M Dahlbom; J A Glaspy; L L Seeger; Y Choi; C W Schiepers; S C Huang; N Satyamurthy; J R Barrio Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1993 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: R A Hawkins; Y Choi; S C Huang; C K Hoh; M Dahlbom; C Schiepers; N Satyamurthy; J R Barrio; M E Phelps Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1992-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: H Schirrmeister; A Guhlmann; J Kotzerke; C Santjohanser; T Kühn; R Kreienberg; P Messer; K Nüssle; K Elsner; G Glatting; H Träger; B Neumaier; C Diederichs; S N Reske Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C Messa; W G Goodman; C K Hoh; Y Choi; A R Nissenson; I B Salusky; M E Phelps; R A Hawkins Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1993-10 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Young Jun Choi; Mi Sun Chung; Hyun Jung Koo; Ji Eun Park; Hee Mang Yoon; Seong Ho Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Ji Eun Park; Kyunghwa Han; Yu Sub Sung; Mi Sun Chung; Hyun Jung Koo; Hee Mang Yoon; Young Jun Choi; Seung Soo Lee; Kyung Won Kim; Youngbin Shin; Suah An; Hyo-Min Cho; Seong Ho Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 3.500