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
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

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

No Added Value of 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET/CT for the Detection of Bone Metastases in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer with Normal Bone Scintigraphy

Helle D. Zacho, Mads R. Jochumsen, Niels C. Langkilde, Jesper C. Mortensen, Christian Haarmark, Helle W. Hendel, Jørgen B. Jensen and Lars J. Petersen
Journal of Nuclear Medicine December 2019, 60 (12) 1713-1716; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.229062
Helle D. Zacho
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Clinical Cancer Research Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
2Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mads R. Jochumsen
3Department of Urology, Regional Hospital West Jutland, Herning, Denmark
4Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Center, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
5Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Niels C. Langkilde
6Department of Urology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jesper C. Mortensen
7Department of Nuclear Medicine, Regional Hospital West Jutland, Herning, Denmark; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christian Haarmark
8Department. of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helle W. Hendel
8Department. of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jørgen B. Jensen
3Department of Urology, Regional Hospital West Jutland, Herning, Denmark
5Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars J. Petersen
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Clinical Cancer Research Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
2Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    Outline of the study. Patients with negative standard imaging* who were undergoing radical prostatectomy were offered inclusion in the study. NaF PET/CT was performed between inclusion in the study and up to 1 mo after radical prostatectomy within the time span marked in gray. The results of the NaF PET/CT scan were unblinded 6 mo after radical prostatectomy. *Standard imaging consists of bone scintigraphy with/without SPECT/CT and diagnostic CT. RP = radical prostatectomy

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

    Patients, n81
    Age (y), mean (range)65 (47–77)
    PSA (ng/mL), mean (range)10.2 (2.3–27)
    Bone scan before inclusion
     Planar whole body49
     Planar whole body + SPECT/CT32
    Gleason
     < 7, n5
     7 (3 + 4), n46
     7 (4 + 3), n18
     > 7, n12
    T-stage
     T1, n41
     T2, n39
     T3, n1
    EAU risk score
     Intermediate risk, n60
     High risk, n21
    PSA response 6 mo after RP
     Biochemical response*, n75
     Biochemical failure†, n6
    • ↵* PSA < 0.2 ng/mL at 6 wk and at 6 mo after radical prostatectomy.

    • ↵† PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL at 6 wk or at 6 mo after radical prostatectomy.

    • EAU = European Association of Urology; PSA = prostate-specific antigen; RP = radical prostatectomy.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Diagnosis According to NaF PET/CT at Staging Compared with Outcome After Radical Prostatectomy

    Postoperative classification
    Biochemical response* n = 75Biochemical failure† n = 6
    NaF PET/CTBone metastases, n = 110
    Equivocal, n = 770
    No bone metastases, n = 73676
    • ↵* PSA < 0.2 ng/mL 6 wk and 6 mo after radical prostatectomy.

    • ↵† PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL at 6 wk or at 6 mo after radical prostatectomy.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Patients with PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL 6 Wk or 6 Mo After Radical Prostatectomy

    PatientBone metastases according to NaF PET/CT*PSA value at 6 wk and 6 mo after radical prostatectomyAdditional imaging during 24 mo of follow-upClinical follow-up and PSA levels after radical prostatectomy – 24 mo of follow-up
    1No bone metastases0.2 ng/mL at 6 wk, 0.1 ng/mL at 6 moPSMA PET/CT and NaF PET/CT 6 mo after radical prostatectomy revealed no bone metastasesPSA levels continuously 0.1 ng/mL at 24 mo after radical prostatectomy
    2No bone metastases0.1 ng/mL at 6 wk,ceCT at 12 mo after radical  prostatectomy revealed no bone  metastasesPSA levels 0.9 ng/mL at 24 mo after  radical prostatectomy. Have started ADT.  No skeletal related symptoms
    0.2 ng/mL at 6 mo
    3No bone metastases1.2 ng/mL at 6 wkPSMA PET/CT at 6 mo after radical  prostatectomy revealed no bone  metastasesHave started ADT. No skeletal  related symptoms
    1.4 ng/mL at 6 mo
    4No bone metastases0.6 ng/mL at 6 wkPSMA PET/CT at 6 mo after  radical prostatectomy and ceCT  18 mo after radical prostatectomy  revealed no bone metastasesHave started ADT. No skeletal  related symptoms
    0.8 ng/mL at 6 mo
    5No bone metastases0.1 ng/mL at 6 wk,PSMA PET/CT at 6 and 15 mo after  radical prostatectomy and ceCT  18 mo after radical prostatectomy  revealed no bone metastasesPositive surgical margins. No skeletal  related symptoms
    0.2 ng/mL at 6 mo
    6No bone metastases0.3 ng/mL at 6 wkPSMA PET/CT 2 mo after radical  prostatectomy revealed no bone  metastasesSalvage radiotherapy of the  prostatic bed 4 mo postsurgery without  concomitant systematic therapy,  thereafter PSA < 0.1 ng/mL
    • ↵* Consensus diagnosis of 2 blinded observers (3-point scale).

    • ceCT = contrast-enhanced CT; PSMA = prostate-specific membrane antigen; ADT = androgen deprivation therapy.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 60 (12)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 60, Issue 12
December 1, 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
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.
No Added Value of 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET/CT for the Detection of Bone Metastases in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer with Normal Bone Scintigraphy
(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
No Added Value of 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET/CT for the Detection of Bone Metastases in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer with Normal Bone Scintigraphy
Helle D. Zacho, Mads R. Jochumsen, Niels C. Langkilde, Jesper C. Mortensen, Christian Haarmark, Helle W. Hendel, Jørgen B. Jensen, Lars J. Petersen
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Dec 2019, 60 (12) 1713-1716; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.229062

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
No Added Value of 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET/CT for the Detection of Bone Metastases in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer with Normal Bone Scintigraphy
Helle D. Zacho, Mads R. Jochumsen, Niels C. Langkilde, Jesper C. Mortensen, Christian Haarmark, Helle W. Hendel, Jørgen B. Jensen, Lars J. Petersen
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Dec 2019, 60 (12) 1713-1716; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.229062
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • KEY POINTS
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET: History, Technical Feasibility, Mechanism of Action, Normal Biodistribution, and Diagnostic Performance in Bone Metastasis Detection Compared with Other Imaging Modalities
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology

  • Role of PET/CT in the management of multiple myeloma
  • FDG-PET/CT and NaF-PET/CT in the diagnosis and assessment of radiation therapy-induced vascular complications in patients with head and neck cancer
  • 18F-FDG PET/CT manifestations of three Cases of Female Desmoplastic Small Round Cell Tumor
Show more Oncology

Clinical

  • Role of PET/CT in the management of multiple myeloma
  • FDG-PET/CT and NaF-PET/CT in the diagnosis and assessment of radiation therapy-induced vascular complications in patients with head and neck cancer
  • 18F-FDG PET/CT manifestations of three Cases of Female Desmoplastic Small Round Cell Tumor
Show more Clinical

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT
  • bone scintigraphy
  • prostate cancer
  • radical prostatectomy
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire