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

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JNM 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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Even-Sapir, E. Articles by Leibovitch, I. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Even-Sapir, E. Articles by Leibovitch, I.

The Detection of Bone Metastases in Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer: ^99mTc-MDP Planar Bone Scintigraphy, Single- and Multi-Field-of-View SPECT, ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET, and ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET/CT

¹ Department of Nuclear Medicine, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; ² Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; ³ Cyclotron Unit, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel; and ⁴ Department of Urology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Einat Even-Sapir, MD, PhD, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, 6 Weizman St., Tel Aviv, 64239 Israel. E-mail: evensap{at}tasmc.health.gov.il

The aim of this study was to compare the detection of bone metastases by ^99mTc-methylene diphosphonate (^99mTc-MDP) planar bone scintigraphy (BS), SPECT, ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET, and ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET/CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: In a prospective study, BS and ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET/CT were performed on the same day in 44 patients with high-risk prostate cancer. In 20 of the latter patients planar BS was followed by single field-of-view (FOV) SPECT and in 24 patients by multi-FOV SPECT of the axial skeleton. Lesions were interpreted separately on each of the 4 modalities as normal, benign, equivocal, or malignant. Results: In patient–based analysis, 23 patients had skeletal metastatic spread (52%) and 21 did not. Categorizing equivocal and malignant interpretation as suggestive for malignancy, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of planar BS were 70%, 57%, 64%, and 55%, respectively, of multi-FOV SPECT were 92%, 82%, 86%, and 90%, of ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET were 100%, 62%, 74%, and 100%, and of ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET/CT were 100% for all parameters. Using the McNemar test, ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET/CT was statistically more sensitive and more specific than planar or SPECT BS (P < 0.05) and more specific than ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET (P < 0.001). SPECT was statistically more sensitive and more specific than planar BS (P < 0.05) but was less sensitive than ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET (P < 0.05). In lesion–based analysis, 156 lesions with increased uptake of ¹⁸F-Fluoride were assessed. Based on the corresponding appearance on CT, lesions were categorized by PET/CT as benign (n = 99), osteoblastic metastasis (n = 46), or equivocal when CT was normal (n = 11). Of the 156 ¹⁸F-Fluoride lesions, 81 lesions (52%), including 34 metastases, were overlooked with normal appearance on planar BS. SPECT identified 62% of the lesions overlooked by planar BS. ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET/CT was more sensitive and more specific than BS (P < 0.001) and more specific than PET alone (P < 0.001). Conclusion: ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET/CT is a highly sensitive and specific modality for detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. It is more specific than ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET alone and more sensitive and specific than planar and SPECT BS. Detection of bone metastases is improved by SPECT compared with planar BS and by ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET compared with SPECT. This added value of ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET/CT may beneficially impact the clinical management of patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Key Words: PET-CT • ¹⁸F-Fluoride • SPECT • bone metastases • prostate cancer

Related articles in JNM:

This Month in JNM

JNM 2006 47: 7a-8a. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. J. Kelloff, P. Choyke, D. S. Coffey, and for The Prostate Cancer Imaging Working Group Challenges in Clinical Prostate Cancer: Role of Imaging Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2009; 192(6): 1455 - 1470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Iagaru, E. Mittra, S. S. Yaghoubi, D. W. Dick, A. Quon, M. L. Goris, and S. S. Gambhir Novel Strategy for a Cocktail 18F-Fluoride and 18F-FDG PET/CT Scan for Evaluation of Malignancy: Results of the Pilot-Phase Study J. Nucl. Med., April 1, 2009; 50(4): 501 - 505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. F.A.Y. Gemmel and F. W. De Geeter Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Bone Scan in High-Risk Prostatic Carcinoma: Some Methodological Considerations J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2008; 26(7): 1189 - 1190. [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. D. Grant, F. H. Fahey, A. B. Packard, R. T. Davis, A. Alavi, and S. T. Treves Skeletal PET with 18F-Fluoride: Applying New Technology to an Old Tracer J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2008; 49(1): 68 - 78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. E. Lecouvet, D. Geukens, A. Stainier, F. Jamar, J. Jamart, B. J. d'Othee, P. Therasse, B. V. Berg, and B. Tombal Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Axial Skeleton for Detecting Bone Metastases in Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Diagnostic and Cost-Effectiveness and Comparison With Current Detection Strategies J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2007; 25(22): 3281 - 3287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Bridges, C. R. Wiley, J. C. Christian, and A. P. Strohm An Introduction to Na18F Bone Scintigraphy: Basic Principles, Advanced Imaging Concepts, and Case Examples J. Nucl. Med. Technol., June 1, 2007; 35(2): 64 - 76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Even-Sapir, G. Flusser, H. Lerman, G. Lievshitz, and U. Metser SPECT/Multislice Low-Dose CT: A Clinically Relevant Constituent in the Imaging Algorithm of Nononcologic Patients Referred for Bone Scintigraphy J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2007; 48(2): 319 - 324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]