HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Van Duzee, B. F. Articles by Watson, N. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Van Duzee, B. F. Articles by Watson, N. E.

Relative Lesion Detection Ability of Tc-99m HMDP and Tc-99m MDP: Concise Communication

Procter & Gamble, Miami Valley Laboratories, Cincinnati, Ohio
Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Veterans Administration Hospital, Denver, Colorado

Correspondence: For reprints contact: Barry F. Van Duzee, PhD, The Procter & Gamble Company, Sharon Woods Technical Center, 11511 Reed Hartman Highway, Cincinnati, OH 45241.

ABSTRACT

To compare the efficacy of Tc-99m HMDP and Tc-99m MDP to define skeletal lesions, 28 adult patients were examined in a double-blind, randomized, crossover study. Each patient was imaged with both agents over a period of 7-14 days. Both quantitative and qualitative evaluations were performed on the resulting images. Both agents detected the same number of skeletal lesions, and the number of lesions detected was the same whether the imaging was performed 2 or 4 hr after injection. Relative uptake of the tracer in the lesion relative to normal bone was also the same for both agents. Lesions were easier to see at 4 hr after injection than at 2 hr, presumably because soft-tissue levels were lower. Retention of tracer in bone compared with soft tissue was greater, and image quality was judged to be better, with Tc-99m HMDP than with Tc-99m MDP.