Literature DB >> 29181269

Diagnostic test accuracy study of 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT, 99mTc-labelled diphosphonate SPECT/CT, and planar bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in newly diagnosed, high-risk prostate cancer.

Randi F Fonager1,2, Helle D Zacho1,2, Niels C Langkilde3, Joan Fledelius4, June A Ejlersen4, Christian Haarmark5, Helle W Hendel5, Mine Benedicte Lange2,6, Mads R Jochumsen7, Jesper C Mortensen4, Lars J Petersen1,2.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to prospectively compare planar, bone scan (BS) versus SPECT/CT and NaF PET/CT in detecting bone metastases in prostate cancer. Thirty-seven consecutive, newly diagnosed, prostate cancer patients with prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels ≥ 50 ng/mL and who were considered eligible for androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) were included in this study. BS, SPECT/CT, and NaF PET/CT, were performed prior to treatment and were repeated after six months of ADT. Baseline images from each index test were independently read by two experienced readers. The reference standard was based on a consensus decision made by a multidisciplinary team on the basis of baseline and follow-up images of the index tests, the findings of the baseline index tests by the experienced readers, and any available imaging, biochemical, and clinical data, including the response to ADT. Twenty-seven (73%) of the 37 patients had bone metastases according to the reference standard. The sensitivities for BS, SPECT/CT and NaF PET/CT were 78%, 89%, and 89%, respectively, and the specificities were 90%, 100%, and 90%, respectively. The positive predictive values of BS, SPECT/CT and NaF PET/CT were 96%, 100%, and 96%, respectively, and the negative predictive values were 60%, 77% and 75%, respectively. No statistically significant difference among the three imaging modalities was observed. All three imaging modalities showed high sensitivity and specificity. NaF PET/CT and SPECT/CT showed numerically improved, but not statistically superior, sensitivity compared with BS in this limited and selected patient cohort.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnostic test accuracy; NaF PET/CT; SPECT/CT; bone metastases; bone scan; prostate cancer

Year:  2017        PMID: 29181269      PMCID: PMC5698615     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging


  26 in total

1.  Various randomized designs can be used to evaluate medical tests.

Authors:  Jeroen G Lijmer; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-10-21       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Unexplained Bone Pain Is an Independent Risk Factor for Bone Metastases in Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Helle D Zacho; Carsten D Mørch; Tamás Barsi; Jesper C Mortensen; Henrik Bertelsen; Lars J Petersen
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 3.  A literature review of 18F-fluoride PET/CT and 18F-choline or 11C-choline PET/CT for detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Maurits Wondergem; Friso M van der Zant; Tjeerd van der Ploeg; Remco J J Knol
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.690

4.  Metastatic Prostate Cancer Incidence and Prostate-specific Antigen Testing: New Insights from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Carlotta Buzzoni; Anssi Auvinen; Monique J Roobol; Sigrid Carlsson; Sue M Moss; Donella Puliti; Harry J de Koning; Chris H Bangma; Louis J Denis; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Vera Nelen; Alvaro Paez; Marco Randazzo; Xavier Rebillard; Teuvo L J Tammela; Arnauld Villers; Jonas Hugosson; Fritz H Schröder; Marco Zappa
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Impact of 18F-fluoride PET in patients with known prostate cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Authors:  Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Lucy Hanna; Fenghai Duan; Anthony F Shields; R Edward Coleman
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Whole-body SPECT/CT for bone scintigraphy: diagnostic value and effect on patient management in oncological patients.

Authors:  H Palmedo; C Marx; A Ebert; B Kreft; Y Ko; A Türler; R Vorreuther; U Göhring; H H Schild; T Gerhardt; U Pöge; S Ezziddin; H-J Biersack; H Ahmadzadehfar
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-08-24       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  When to perform bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: external validation of the currently available guidelines and proposal of a novel risk stratification tool.

Authors:  Alberto Briganti; Niccolò Passoni; Matteo Ferrari; Umberto Capitanio; Nazareno Suardi; Andrea Gallina; Luigi Filippo Da Pozzo; Maria Picchio; Valerio Di Girolamo; Andrea Salonia; Liugi Gianolli; Cristina Messa; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  (18)F-fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography and bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in newly diagnosed, high-risk prostate cancer patients: study protocol for a multicentre, diagnostic test accuracy study.

Authors:  Randi F Fonager; Helle D Zacho; Niels C Langkilde; Lars J Petersen
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 9.  Use of expert panels to define the reference standard in diagnostic research: a systematic review of published methods and reporting.

Authors:  Loes C M Bertens; Berna D L Broekhuizen; Christiana A Naaktgeboren; Frans H Rutten; Arno W Hoes; Yvonne van Mourik; Karel G M Moons; Johannes B Reitsma
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  The EANM practice guidelines for bone scintigraphy.

Authors:  T Van den Wyngaert; K Strobel; W U Kampen; T Kuwert; W van der Bruggen; H K Mohan; G Gnanasegaran; R Delgado-Bolton; W A Weber; M Beheshti; W Langsteger; F Giammarile; F M Mottaghy; F Paycha
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-06-04       Impact factor: 9.236

View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  68Ga-PSMA-PET: added value and future applications in comparison to the current use of choline-PET and mpMRI in the workup of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Simona Malaspina; Ugo De Giorgi; Jukka Kemppainen; Angelo Del Sole; Giovanni Paganelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in comparison with 18F-fluoride-PET/CT and whole-body MRI for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

Authors:  Eva Dyrberg; Helle W Hendel; Tri Hien Viet Huynh; Tobias Wirenfeldt Klausen; Vibeke B Løgager; Claus Madsen; Erik M Pedersen; Maria Pedersen; Henrik S Thomsen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Comparison of PSMA-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, MRI, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jing Zhou; Zhengxing Gou; Renhui Wu; Yuan Yuan; Guiquan Yu; Yigang Zhao
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Prospective comparison of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT and diffusion weighted-MRI at for the detection of bone metastases in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer.

Authors:  Helle D Zacho; Julie B Nielsen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Uwe Haberkorn; Nandita deSouza; Katja De Paepe; Katja Dettmann; Niels C Langkilde; Christian Haarmark; Rune V Fisker; Dennis T Arp; Jesper Carl; Jørgen B Jensen; Lars J Petersen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Clinical value of dual-phase F-18 sodium fluoride PET/CT for diagnosing bone metastasis in cancer patients with solitary bone lesion.

Authors:  Jeong Won Lee; Yong-Jin Park; Youn Soo Jeon; Ki Hong Kim; Jong Eun Lee; Sung Hoon Hong; Sang Mi Lee; Su Jin Jang
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-11

Review 6.  Targeted α-therapy of prostate cancer using radiolabeled PSMA inhibitors: a game changer in nuclear medicine.

Authors:  Rubel Chakravarty; Cerise M Siamof; Ashutosh Dash; Weibo Cai
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-08-20

Review 7.  Recent updates and developments in PET imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Steven P Rowe; Geoffrey B Johnson; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Spencer C Behr
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

8.  Observer Agreement and Accuracy of 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET/CT in the Diagnosis of Bone Metastases in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Helle D Zacho; Randi F Fonager; Julie B Nielsen; Christian Haarmark; Helle W Hendel; Martin B Johansen; Jesper C Mortensen; Lars J Petersen
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 11.082

Review 9.  Does quantification have a role to play in the future of bone SPECT?

Authors:  James C Ross; Dijana Vilić; Tom Sanderson; Stefan Vöö; John Dickson
Journal:  Eur J Hybrid Imaging       Date:  2019-05-03

10.  Reporting and Handling of Indeterminate Bone Scan Results in the Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Lars J Petersen; Jesper Strandberg; Louise Stenholt; Martin B Johansen; Helle D Zacho
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2018-01-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.