OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study is to evaluate the combined use of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ((18) F-FDG) and fluorine-18 sodium fluoride ((18) F-NaF) PET/CT in the skeletal assessment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and to compare the efficacy of these two PET tracers regarding detection of myeloma-indicative osseous lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study includes 60 patients with multiple myeloma (MM) diagnosed according to standard criteria. All patients underwent dynamic (dPET/CT) scanning of the pelvis as well as whole body PET/CT studies with both tracers. The interval between the two exams was one day. Sites of focal increased (18) F-FDG uptake were considered as highly suspicious of myelomatous involvement. The lesions detected on the (18) F-NaF PET/CT scans were then correlated with those detected on (18) F-FDG PET/CT, which served as a reference. Moreover, the (18) F-FDG PET/CT results were also correlated with the low-dose CT findings. The evaluation of dPET/CT studies was based on qualitative evaluation, SUV calculation, and quantitative analysis based on a 2-tissue compartment model and a non-compartmental approach. RESULTS: Whole body (18) F-FDG PET/CT revealed approximately 343 focal lesions while (18) F-NaF PET/CT revealed 135 MM-indicative lesions (39 % correlation). CT demonstrated 150 lesions that correlated with those in (18) F-FDG PET/CT (44 % correlation). Six patients demonstrated a diffuse pattern of disease with (18) F-FDG, while 15 of them had a mixed (diffuse and focal) pattern of skeletal (18) F-FDG uptake. A high number of degenerative, traumatic and arthritic disease lesions were detected with (18) F-NaF PET/CT. In three patients with multiple focal (18) F-FDG-uptake, (18) F-NaF PET/CT failed to demonstrate any bone lesion. The dPET/CT scanning of the pelvic area with (18) F-FDG and (18) F-NaF revealed 77 and 24 MM-indicative lesions, respectively. Kinetic analysis of (18) F-FDG revealed the following mean values: SUVaver = 5.1, k1 = 0.37 (1/min), k3 = 0.10 (1/min), VB = 0.06, influx = 0.04 (1/min), FD = 1.28; the respective values for (18) F-NaF were SUVaverage = 10.7, k1 = 0.25 (1/min), k3 = 0.34 (1/min), VB = 0.02, influx = 0.10 (1/min), FD = 1.37. Apart from the correlation between VB of (18) F-FDG and k1 of (18) F-NaF (r = 0.54), no other significant correlation was observed between the two tracers' kinetic parameters. We found a significant correlation between FD and SUVaverage (r = 0.93), FD and SUVmax (r = 0.80), FD and influx ( r = 0.85), as well as between influx and SUVaverage (r = 0.74) for (18) F-FDG. In (18) F-NaF we observed the most significant correlations between FD and SUVaverage (r = 0.97), FD and SUVmax (r = 0.87), and between influx and k1 (r = 0.72). CONCLUSION: The combined use of (18) F-FDG PET/CT and (18) F-NaF PET/CT provides different molecular information regarding the biological processes that take place in a MM osseous lesion. (18) F-FDG PET/CT proved to be a more specific biomarker than (18) F-NaF PET/CT in multiple myeloma skeletal assessment.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study is to evaluate the combined use of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ((18) F-FDG) and fluorine-18 sodium fluoride ((18) F-NaF) PET/CT in the skeletal assessment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and to compare the efficacy of these two PET tracers regarding detection of myeloma-indicative osseous lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study includes 60 patients with multiple myeloma (MM) diagnosed according to standard criteria. All patients underwent dynamic (dPET/CT) scanning of the pelvis as well as whole body PET/CT studies with both tracers. The interval between the two exams was one day. Sites of focal increased (18) F-FDG uptake were considered as highly suspicious of myelomatous involvement. The lesions detected on the (18) F-NaF PET/CT scans were then correlated with those detected on (18) F-FDG PET/CT, which served as a reference. Moreover, the (18) F-FDG PET/CT results were also correlated with the low-dose CT findings. The evaluation of dPET/CT studies was based on qualitative evaluation, SUV calculation, and quantitative analysis based on a 2-tissue compartment model and a non-compartmental approach. RESULTS: Whole body (18) F-FDG PET/CT revealed approximately 343 focal lesions while (18) F-NaF PET/CT revealed 135 MM-indicative lesions (39 % correlation). CT demonstrated 150 lesions that correlated with those in (18) F-FDG PET/CT (44 % correlation). Six patients demonstrated a diffuse pattern of disease with (18) F-FDG, while 15 of them had a mixed (diffuse and focal) pattern of skeletal (18) F-FDG uptake. A high number of degenerative, traumatic and arthritic disease lesions were detected with (18) F-NaF PET/CT. In three patients with multiple focal (18) F-FDG-uptake, (18) F-NaF PET/CT failed to demonstrate any bone lesion. The dPET/CT scanning of the pelvic area with (18) F-FDG and (18) F-NaF revealed 77 and 24 MM-indicative lesions, respectively. Kinetic analysis of (18) F-FDG revealed the following mean values: SUVaver = 5.1, k1 = 0.37 (1/min), k3 = 0.10 (1/min), VB = 0.06, influx = 0.04 (1/min), FD = 1.28; the respective values for (18) F-NaF were SUVaverage = 10.7, k1 = 0.25 (1/min), k3 = 0.34 (1/min), VB = 0.02, influx = 0.10 (1/min), FD = 1.37. Apart from the correlation between VB of (18) F-FDG and k1 of (18) F-NaF (r = 0.54), no other significant correlation was observed between the two tracers' kinetic parameters. We found a significant correlation between FD and SUVaverage (r = 0.93), FD and SUVmax (r = 0.80), FD and influx ( r = 0.85), as well as between influx and SUVaverage (r = 0.74) for (18) F-FDG. In (18) F-NaF we observed the most significant correlations between FD and SUVaverage (r = 0.97), FD and SUVmax (r = 0.87), and between influx and k1 (r = 0.72). CONCLUSION: The combined use of (18) F-FDG PET/CT and (18) F-NaF PET/CT provides different molecular information regarding the biological processes that take place in a MM osseous lesion. (18) F-FDG PET/CT proved to be a more specific biomarker than (18) F-NaF PET/CT in multiple myeloma skeletal assessment.
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: C Schiepers; J Nuyts; G Bormans; J Dequeker; R Bouillon; L Mortelmans; A Verbruggen; M De Roo Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christos Sachpekidis; Christian Thieke; Vasileios Askoxylakis; Nils H Nicolay; Peter E Huber; Michael Thomas; Georgia Dimitrakopoulou; Juergen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-01-15
Authors: C Sachpekidis; M Eder; K Kopka; W Mier; B A Hadaschik; U Haberkorn; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Manisha Bhutani; Baris Turkbey; Esther Tan; Neha Korde; Mary Kwok; Elisabet E Manasanch; Nishant Tageja; Sham Mailankody; Mark Roschewski; Marcia Mulquin; Ashley Carpenter; Elizabeth Lamping; Alex R Minter; Brendan M Weiss; Esther Mena; Liza Lindenberg; Katherine R Calvo; Irina Maric; Saad Z Usmani; Peter L Choyke; Karen Kurdziel; Ola Landgren Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2016-04-07
Authors: William Raynor; Sina Houshmand; Saeid Gholami; Sahra Emamzadehfard; Chamith S Rajapakse; Björn Alexander Blomberg; Thomas J Werner; Poul F Høilund-Carlsen; Joshua F Baker; Abass Alavi Journal: Curr Osteoporos Rep Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 5.096
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