Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportOncology, Clinical Diagnosis Track

Bone scan index as a new imaging biomarker in response assessment of prostate cancer patients with bone metastasis

Sonya Park, Sandy Srinivas and Erik Mittra
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2017, 58 (supplement 1) 758;
Sonya Park
2Radiology Stanford University Stanford CA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandy Srinivas
1Oncology Stanford University Stanford CA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erik Mittra
2Radiology Stanford University Stanford CA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

758

Objectives: Bone scan index (BSI) is a reproducible, quantitative expression of tumor burden seen on bone scintigraphy. The objective of this study was to compare changes between serial scans of prostate cancer patients with bone metastasis, as assessed by visual analysis, lesion number, and automated BSI software.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 283 bone scans from 29 prostate cancer patients. Visual analysis for response assessment was done on a 4-point scale: 1 progression, 2 indeterminate (new uptake for which metastasis cannot be excluded nor confirmed), 3 stable disease, 4 regression. BSI and lesion number were calculated using EXINI boneBSI. ΔBSI and Δlesion number were taken as the difference between two consecutive scans. The difference in ΔBSI and Δlesion number was evaluated by the Mann Whitney U-test. Survival differences according to response as assessed by the three methods were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Regression analysis was done for survival with ΔBSI and Δlesion number.

Results: The mean BSI and lesion number at initial diagnosis of bone metastasis with a previously negative scan was 0.33 and 4, respectively. Four of the 17 cases with indeterminate visual response were true positive on follow-up, and had a significantly higher mean ΔBSI (p=0.030) and Δlesion number (p=0.004) than the false positive. For patients progressing by visual analysis, the mean ΔBSI for was significantly higher than for stable disease (see table). In all three methods of response assessment, Kaplan-Meier curves showed shorter survival for progression than stable disease, with the greatest difference being by ΔBSI (p=0.022). Regression modeling with ΔBSI for survival was also statistically significant (p=0.029).

Conclusion: BSI is a promising biomarker for disease progression or treatment response in prostate cancer patients with bone metastasis. Research Support: $$graphic_4F9AF000-C57D-476A-BC2E-18F84E79896C$$

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Change in BSI and lesion number, by response (mean)

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 58, Issue supplement 1
May 1, 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Bone scan index as a new imaging biomarker in response assessment of prostate cancer patients with bone metastasis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Bone scan index as a new imaging biomarker in response assessment of prostate cancer patients with bone metastasis
Sonya Park, Sandy Srinivas, Erik Mittra
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2017, 58 (supplement 1) 758;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Bone scan index as a new imaging biomarker in response assessment of prostate cancer patients with bone metastasis
Sonya Park, Sandy Srinivas, Erik Mittra
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2017, 58 (supplement 1) 758;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology, Clinical Diagnosis Track

  • Immunohistochemical analysis of Gastrin-Releasing-Peptide receptor (GRPr) and Prostate-Specific- Membrane Antigen (PSMA) in primary prostate cancer: comparison with radiolabeled GRPr antagonist (68Ga-RM2) PET/CT
  • Relationship between FDG PETCT imaging and CA 125 levels in treated patients with Ovarian cancers - Can FDG PETCT define and predict the disease burden in clinically suspected recurrence ?
  • Cancer-associated fibroblasts enhance tumor 18F-FDG uptake and contribute to the intratumor heterogeneity of SUVmax
Show more Oncology, Clinical Diagnosis Track

Prostate IV: Non-Prostate and Bone Imaging

  • Value of combined 18F-FDG/18F-NaF PET/CT in tumor detection and therapy response in patients with advanced bladder cancer treated with Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab alone or in combination with Ipilimumab
  • A retrospective analysis of sodium fluoride (NaF-18)-PET/CT and Ga-68-PSMA PET/CT in the assessment of skeletal metastases in metastatic prostate cancer using a volumetric 3-D analysis
Show more Prostate IV: Non-Prostate and Bone Imaging

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire