BACKGROUND: Skeletal metastases are the most common malignant tumor in bone. Certain types of cancer (e.g., of the prostate or breast) are particularly likely to give rise to skeletal metastases, with prevalences of up to 70%. The diagnosis of skeletal metastases has a major impact on the overall treatment strategy and is an important determinant of the course of illness and the quality of life. The goal of diagnostic imaging is to detect skeletal metastases early, whenever they are suspected on the basis of clinical or laboratory findings or in patients who are at high risk. Other important issues include assessment of the risk of fracture and the response to treatment. METHODS: This review is based on selected pertinent articles published up to December 2013. RESULTS: Projectional radiography (plain films) is still useful for the immediate investigation of symptomatic bone pain and for the assessment of stability. Skeletal scintigraphy, the classic screening test for patients with cancer who do not have bone pain (specificity 81%, sensitivity 86%), has now been supplemented-in some cases, replaced-by other techniques. CT, including lowdose CT, is used to detect changes in bone structure due to metastases of some types of primary tumor (specificity 95%, sensitivity 73%); whole-body MRI, to detect metastases in the bone marrow and extraosseous soft tissues, e.g., metastases compressing the spinal cord (specificity 95%, sensitivity 91%); PET-CT, to detect metabolically active tumors (specificity 97%, sensitivity 90%). CONCLUSION: Different imaging modalities are often used in combination to detect bone metastases optimally. Owing to advances in modern tomographic imaging, the current trend is toward whole-body imaging in a single session. The choice of method is based on the clinical situation and the type of primary tumor. Further research should address the impact of these costly and laborintensive imaging methods on treatment strategies and on the course of illness.
BACKGROUND:Skeletal metastases are the most common malignant tumor in bone. Certain types of cancer (e.g., of the prostate or breast) are particularly likely to give rise to skeletal metastases, with prevalences of up to 70%. The diagnosis of skeletal metastases has a major impact on the overall treatment strategy and is an important determinant of the course of illness and the quality of life. The goal of diagnostic imaging is to detect skeletal metastases early, whenever they are suspected on the basis of clinical or laboratory findings or in patients who are at high risk. Other important issues include assessment of the risk of fracture and the response to treatment. METHODS: This review is based on selected pertinent articles published up to December 2013. RESULTS: Projectional radiography (plain films) is still useful for the immediate investigation of symptomatic bone pain and for the assessment of stability. Skeletal scintigraphy, the classic screening test for patients with cancer who do not have bone pain (specificity 81%, sensitivity 86%), has now been supplemented-in some cases, replaced-by other techniques. CT, including lowdose CT, is used to detect changes in bone structure due to metastases of some types of primary tumor (specificity 95%, sensitivity 73%); whole-body MRI, to detect metastases in the bone marrow and extraosseous soft tissues, e.g., metastases compressing the spinal cord (specificity 95%, sensitivity 91%); PET-CT, to detect metabolically active tumors (specificity 97%, sensitivity 90%). CONCLUSION: Different imaging modalities are often used in combination to detect bone metastases optimally. Owing to advances in modern tomographic imaging, the current trend is toward whole-body imaging in a single session. The choice of method is based on the clinical situation and the type of primary tumor. Further research should address the impact of these costly and laborintensive imaging methods on treatment strategies and on the course of illness.
Authors: H E Daldrup-Link; C Franzius; T M Link; D Laukamp; J Sciuk; H Jürgens; O Schober; E J Rummeny Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Onofrio A Catalano; Bruce R Rosen; Dushyant V Sahani; Peter F Hahn; Alexander R Guimaraes; Mark G Vangel; Emanuele Nicolai; Andrea Soricelli; Marco Salvatore Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Tsuyoshi Hamaoka; John E Madewell; Donald A Podoloff; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Naoto T Ueno Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Alicia Samuels; Asma Ghafoor; Elizabeth Ward; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702