Literature DB >> 9779715

Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions.

G J Cook1, S Houston, R Rubens, M N Maisey, I Fogelman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: 99mTechnetium methylene diphosphonate (99mTc MDP) bone scintigraphy is currently the method of choice for the detection of bone metastases, but 18F-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (18FDG PET) offers superior spatial resolution and improved sensitivity. We have compared 18FDG PET with 99mTc MDP bone scintigraphy in patients with skeletal metastases from breast cancer and have analyzed the data in subgroups based on radiographic characteristics of lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-three women with breast cancer and confirmed bone metastases were studied with both 99mTC MDP bone scintigraphy and 18FDG PET, and the number of lesions detected and the quantitation of uptake (standardized uptake values [SUVs]) of 18FDG in osteolytic and osteoblastic metastases were compared. Survival was compared for both lytic and blastic bone metastases and for patients with high and low accumulation of 18FDG.
RESULTS: 18FDG PET detected more lesions than 99mTc MDP scintigraphy (mean, 14.1 and 7.8 lesions, respectively; P < .01). However, 18FDG detected fewer bone metastases compared with 99mTc MDP scintigraphy in a subgroup of patients with osteoblastic disease (P < .05). Higher SUVs were observed for osteolytic than osteoblastic disease (mean, 6.77 and 0.95, respectively; P < .01). Survival was lower in patients with osteolytic disease compared with the remainder (P=.01). A difference in survival was not found for those patients with high SUVs (> 3.6; P=.4).
CONCLUSION: 18FDG PET is superior to bone scintigraphy in the detection of osteolytic breast cancer metastases, which led to a poorer prognosis. In contrast, osteoblastic metastases show lower metabolic activity and are frequently undetectable by PET. The biologic explanation for this observation remains to be elucidated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9779715     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.10.3375

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  98 in total

1.  Bone scintigraphy: procedure guidelines for tumour imaging.

Authors:  Emilio Bombardieri; Cumali Aktolun; Richard P Baum; Angelika Bishof-Delaloye; John Buscombe; Jean François Chatal; Lorenzo Maffioli; Roy Moncayo; Luc Morteímans; Sven N Reske
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Whither the PET scan? The role of PET imaging in the staging and treatment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Alessandra Gennari; Arnoldo Piccardo; Vania Altrinetti; Davide Corradengo; Giampiero Villavecchia; Andrea De Censi
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 3.  Decoding human swallowing via electroencephalography: a state-of-the-art review.

Authors:  Iva Jestrović; James L Coyle; Ervin Sejdić
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 5.379

4.  Prospective comparison of combined 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET/CT vs. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for detection of malignancy.

Authors:  Frank I Lin; Jyotsna E Rao; Erik S Mittra; Kavitha Nallapareddy; Alka Chengapa; David W Dick; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir; Andrei Iagaru
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Relative roles of bone scintigraphy and positron emission tomography in assessing the treatment response of bone metastases.

Authors:  J R García; M Simó; M Soler; G Pérez; S López; F Lomeña
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Osteoblastic bone metastases in breast cancer: is not seeing believing?

Authors:  Ignac Fogelman
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 7.  Current and future use of positron emission tomography (PET) in breast cancer.

Authors:  David A Mankoff; William B Eubank
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.673

8.  A prospective study of bone tumor response assessment in metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Naoki Hayashi; Colleen M Costelloe; Tsuyoshi Hamaoka; Caimiao Wei; Naoki Niikura; Richard L Theriault; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; John E Madewell; Naoto T Ueno
Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 9.  Advantages and limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer.

Authors:  Peter Lind; Isabel Igerc; Thomas Beyer; Peter Reinprecht; Klaus Hausegger
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET.

Authors:  Gerhard W Goerres; Sven C A Michel; Mathias K Fehr; Achim H Kaim; Hans C Steinert; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Rahel A Kubik-Huch
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-11-13       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.