Ji Yeon Kang1, Won Woo Lee2, Young So3, Byung Chul Lee2, Sang Eun Kim2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 166 Gumi-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do 463-707 Korea. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 166 Gumi-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do 463-707 Korea ; Institute of Radiation Medicine, Medical Research Center, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: (18)F-fluoride bone positron emission tomography (PET) has been reported as a useful bone imaging modality. However, no clinical bone PET study had been performed previously in Korea. The authors investigated the usefulness of (18)F-fluoride bone PET in Korean patients with malignant or benign bone disease. METHODS: Eighteen consecutive patients (eight women, ten men; mean age, 55 ± 12 years) who had undergone (18)F-fluoride bone PET for the evaluation of bone metastasis (n = 13) or benign bone lesions (n = 5) were included. The interpretation of bone lesions on (18)F-fluoride bone PET was determined by consensus of two nuclear medicine physicians, and final results were confirmed using combination of all imaging studies and/or clinical follow-up. The analysis was performed on the basis of lesion group. RESULTS: Thirteen patients with malignant disease had 15 lesion groups, among which seven were confirmed as metastatic bone lesions and eight were confirmed as non-metastatic lesions. (18)F-fluoride bone PET correctly identified six of seven metastatic lesions (sensitivity, 86%), and seven of eight non-metastatic lesions (specificity, 88%). On the other hand, five patients with benign conditions had five bone lesion groups; four were confirmed as benign bone diseases and the other one was confirmed as not a bone lesion. (18)F-fluoride bone PET showed correct results in all the five lesion groups. CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-fluoride bone PET showed promising potential for bone imaging in Korean patients with malignant diseases as well as with various benign bone conditions. Therefore, further studies are required on the diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness of (18)F-fluoride bone PET.
PURPOSE: (18)F-fluoride bone positron emission tomography (PET) has been reported as a useful bone imaging modality. However, no clinical bone PET study had been performed previously in Korea. The authors investigated the usefulness of (18)F-fluoride bone PET in Korean patients with malignant or benign bone disease. METHODS: Eighteen consecutive patients (eight women, ten men; mean age, 55 ± 12 years) who had undergone (18)F-fluoride bone PET for the evaluation of bone metastasis (n = 13) or benign bone lesions (n = 5) were included. The interpretation of bone lesions on (18)F-fluoride bone PET was determined by consensus of two nuclear medicine physicians, and final results were confirmed using combination of all imaging studies and/or clinical follow-up. The analysis was performed on the basis of lesion group. RESULTS: Thirteen patients with malignant disease had 15 lesion groups, among which seven were confirmed as metastatic bone lesions and eight were confirmed as non-metastatic lesions. (18)F-fluoride bone PET correctly identified six of seven metastatic lesions (sensitivity, 86%), and seven of eight non-metastatic lesions (specificity, 88%). On the other hand, five patients with benign conditions had five bone lesion groups; four were confirmed as benign bone diseases and the other one was confirmed as not a bone lesion. (18)F-fluoride bone PET showed correct results in all the five lesion groups. CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-fluoride bone PET showed promising potential for bone imaging in Korean patients with malignant diseases as well as with various benign bone conditions. Therefore, further studies are required on the diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness of (18)F-fluoride bone PET.
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: 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: Frederick D Grant; Frederic H Fahey; Alan B Packard; Royal T Davis; Abass Alavi; S Ted Treves Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-12-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Winfried Brenner; Cheryl Vernon; Mark Muzi; David A Mankoff; Jeanne M Link; Ernest U Conrad; Janet F Eary Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Morand Piert; Tilman T Zittel; Michael Jahn; Anke Stahlschmidt; Georg A Becker; Hans-Jürgen Machulla Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Seok-Ho Yoon; Ku Sang Kim; Seok Yun Kang; Hee-Sung Song; Kyung Sook Jo; Bong-Hoi Choi; Su Jin Lee; Joon-Kee Yoon; Young-Sil An Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-10-27
Authors: Won Woo Lee; Young So; Seo Young Kang; Min-Kyung So; Haeryoung Kim; Hyun Woo Chung; Wan Seop Kim; Sang Eun Kim Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Euna Choi; Ji Won Han; Seung Wan Suh; Jong Bin Bae; Ji Hyun Han; Subin Lee; Sang Eun Kim; Ki Woong Kim Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 4.086