Koji Onoue1, Mizuho Nishio2,3, Masahiro Yakami1,4, Gakuto Aoyama5, Keita Nakagomi5, Yoshio Iizuka5, Takeshi Kubo1, Yutaka Emoto6, Thai Akasaka1, Kiyohide Satoh5, Hiroyuki Yamamoto5, Hiroyoshi Isoda1,4, Kaori Togashi1. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. 2. Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. nmizuho@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp. 3. Preemptive Medicine and Lifestyle-related Disease Research Center, Kyoto University Hospital, 53 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. nmizuho@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp. 4. Preemptive Medicine and Lifestyle-related Disease Research Center, Kyoto University Hospital, 53 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. 5. Medical Imaging System Development Center, R&D Headquarters, Canon Inc., 30-2, Shimomaruko 3-chome, Ohta-ku, Tokyo, 146-8501, Japan. 6. Kyoto College of Medical Science, 1-3 Imakita, Koyamahigashi-cho, Sonobe-cho, Nantan, Kyoto, 622-0041, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare observer performance of detecting bone metastases between bone scintigraphy, including planar scan and single-photon emission computed tomography, and computed tomography (CT) temporal subtraction (TS). METHODS: Data on 60 patients with cancer who had undergone CT (previous and current) and bone scintigraphy were collected. Previous CT images were registered to the current ones by large deformation diffeomorphic metric mapping; the registered previous images were subtracted from the current ones to produce TS. Definitive diagnosis of bone metastases was determined by consensus between two radiologists. Twelve readers independently interpreted the following pairs of examinations: NM-pair, previous and current CTs and bone scintigraphy, and TS-pair, previous and current CTs and TS. The readers assigned likelihood levels to suspected bone metastases for diagnosis. Sensitivity, number of false positives per patient (FPP), and reading time for each pair of examinations were analysed for evaluating observer performance by performing the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Figure-of-merit (FOM) was calculated using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The sensitivity of TS was significantly higher than that of bone scintigraphy (54.3% vs. 41.3%, p = 0.006). FPP with TS was significantly higher than that with bone scintigraphy (0.189 vs. 0.0722, p = 0.003). FOM of TS tended to be better than that of bone scintigraphy (0.742 vs. 0.691, p = 0.070). CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of TS in detecting bone metastasis was significantly higher than that of bone scintigraphy, but still limited to 54%. TS might be superior to bone scintigraphy for early detection of bone metastasis. KEY POINTS: • Computed tomography temporal subtraction was helpful in early detection of bone metastases. • Sensitivity for bone metastasis was higher for computed tomography temporal subtraction than for bone scintigraphy. • Figure-of-merit of computed tomography temporal subtraction was better than that of bone scintigraphy.
OBJECTIVES: To compare observer performance of detecting bone metastases between bone scintigraphy, including planar scan and single-photon emission computed tomography, and computed tomography (CT) temporal subtraction (TS). METHODS: Data on 60 patients with cancer who had undergone CT (previous and current) and bone scintigraphy were collected. Previous CT images were registered to the current ones by large deformation diffeomorphic metric mapping; the registered previous images were subtracted from the current ones to produce TS. Definitive diagnosis of bone metastases was determined by consensus between two radiologists. Twelve readers independently interpreted the following pairs of examinations: NM-pair, previous and current CTs and bone scintigraphy, and TS-pair, previous and current CTs and TS. The readers assigned likelihood levels to suspected bone metastases for diagnosis. Sensitivity, number of false positives per patient (FPP), and reading time for each pair of examinations were analysed for evaluating observer performance by performing the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Figure-of-merit (FOM) was calculated using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The sensitivity of TS was significantly higher than that of bone scintigraphy (54.3% vs. 41.3%, p = 0.006). FPP with TS was significantly higher than that with bone scintigraphy (0.189 vs. 0.0722, p = 0.003). FOM of TS tended to be better than that of bone scintigraphy (0.742 vs. 0.691, p = 0.070). CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of TS in detecting bone metastasis was significantly higher than that of bone scintigraphy, but still limited to 54%. TS might be superior to bone scintigraphy for early detection of bone metastasis. KEY POINTS: • Computed tomography temporal subtraction was helpful in early detection of bone metastases. • Sensitivity for bone metastasis was higher for computed tomography temporal subtraction than for bone scintigraphy. • Figure-of-merit of computed tomography temporal subtraction was better than that of bone scintigraphy.
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: Roy A Patchell; Phillip A Tibbs; William F Regine; Richard Payne; Stephen Saris; Richard J Kryscio; Mohammed Mohiuddin; Byron Young Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Aug 20-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stefan Krüger; Andreas K Buck; Felix M Mottaghy; Ellen Hasenkamp; Sandra Pauls; Christian Schumann; Thomas Wibmer; Tobias Merk; Vinzenz Hombach; Sven N Reske Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-06-06 Impact factor: 9.236
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