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
Research ArticleClinical
Open Access

Is Response Assessment of Breast Cancer Bone Metastases Better with Measurement of 18F-Fluoride Metabolic Flux Than with Measurement of 18F-Fluoride PET/CT SUV?

Gurdip K. Azad, Musib Siddique, Benjamin Taylor, Adrian Green, Jim O’Doherty, Joanna Gariani, Glen M. Blake, Janine Mansi, Vicky Goh and Gary J.R. Cook
Journal of Nuclear Medicine March 2019, 60 (3) 322-327; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.208710
Gurdip K. Azad
1Cancer Imaging Department, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King’s College London, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Musib Siddique
1Cancer Imaging Department, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King’s College London, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benjamin Taylor
2Department of Oncology, Guys and St. Thomas’ Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adrian Green
1Cancer Imaging Department, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King’s College London, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jim O’Doherty
3King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ PET Centre, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom
4Department of Molecular Imaging, Sidra Medicine, Doha, Qatar; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joanna Gariani
5Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Glen M. Blake
1Cancer Imaging Department, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King’s College London, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janine Mansi
2Department of Oncology, Guys and St. Thomas’ Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vicky Goh
1Cancer Imaging Department, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King’s College London, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gary J.R. Cook
1Cancer Imaging Department, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King’s College London, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom
3King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ PET Centre, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • 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.

    Lesion analysis: Scatterplot for percentage changes in Ki against percentage changes in SUVmax and SUVmean for PD and non-PD 8 wk after start of treatment.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    Patient basis: Scatterplot for percentage changes in Ki against percentage changes in SUVmax and SUVmean for PD and non-PD 8 wk after start of treatment.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Comparison of Tumor Parameters at Baseline and at 8 Weeks

    Baseline8 wkMean % change
    Mean tumor volumeKiSUVmaxSUVmeanMean tumor volumeKiSUVmaxSUVmeanKiSUVmaxSUVmean
    6.80.06735.118.86.60.0838.320.835.116.017.2
    • Data are for 52 tumors. Units are cm3 for tumor volume, mL min−1 mL−1 for Ki, and g/mL for SUV.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Correlation Between Ki and SUV at Baseline and at 8 Weeks

    Correlation coefficient
    % change
    ComparisonBaseline8 wkAll patientsPD patientsNon-PD patients
    Ki vs. SUVmax0.632 (P < 0.001)0.830 (P < 0.001)0.852 (P < 0.001)0.811 (P < 0.001)0.863 (P < 0.001)
    Ki vs. SUVmean0.784 (P < 0.001)0.901 (P < 0.001)0.901 (P < 0.001)0.904 (P < 0.001)0.933 (P < 0.001)
    • Data are for 52 tumors in 12 patients. Units are mL min−1 mL−1 for Ki and g/mL for SUV.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Comparison of Tumor Parameters at Baseline and at 8 Weeks in Individual PD and non-PD Patients

    Baseline8 wk% change
    Patient typePatient no.KiSUVmaxSUVmeanKiSUVmaxSUVmeanKiSUVmaxSUVmean
    PD10.03325.712.00.07537.116.9145.058.851.8
    20.07132.620.20.09132.619.638.62.13.3
    30.04749.621.90.12185.946.8140.263.298.4
    40.08330.719.40.11044.023.134.943.020.4
    Non-PD10.06725.811.70.06325.7412.72−4.7−4.19.4
    20.14560.934.40.12146.9626.64−14.5−20.0−20.7
    30.07837.621.70.07626.7016.72−1.3−28.0−23.1
    40.04538.819.80.03630.3815.47−19.8−21.7−21.8
    50.05126.114.40.05127.3515.405.412.311.4
    60.04012.425.30.07937.5918.7797.548.250.8
    70.05525.014.80.06334.7318.3115.632.523.0
    80.05927.613.40.05123.6814.0210.130.130.5
    P*P = <0.01P = 0.067P = 0.153
    • ↵* PD vs. non-PD.

    • PD data are for 20 tumors; non-PD data are for 32 tumors. Units are mL min−1 mL−1 for Ki and g/mL for SUV.

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 (3)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 60, Issue 3
March 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.
Is Response Assessment of Breast Cancer Bone Metastases Better with Measurement of 18F-Fluoride Metabolic Flux Than with Measurement of 18F-Fluoride PET/CT SUV?
(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
Is Response Assessment of Breast Cancer Bone Metastases Better with Measurement of 18F-Fluoride Metabolic Flux Than with Measurement of 18F-Fluoride PET/CT SUV?
Gurdip K. Azad, Musib Siddique, Benjamin Taylor, Adrian Green, Jim O’Doherty, Joanna Gariani, Glen M. Blake, Janine Mansi, Vicky Goh, Gary J.R. Cook
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Mar 2019, 60 (3) 322-327; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.118.208710

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Is Response Assessment of Breast Cancer Bone Metastases Better with Measurement of 18F-Fluoride Metabolic Flux Than with Measurement of 18F-Fluoride PET/CT SUV?
Gurdip K. Azad, Musib Siddique, Benjamin Taylor, Adrian Green, Jim O’Doherty, Joanna Gariani, Glen M. Blake, Janine Mansi, Vicky Goh, Gary J.R. Cook
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Mar 2019, 60 (3) 322-327; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.118.208710
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
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Practical Methods for Estimating Metabolic Flux (Ki) to Assess Response to Therapy via Static PET Scans
  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • 68Ga-Bisphosphonates for the Imaging of Extraosseous Calcification by Positron Emission Tomography
  • Molecular Imaging of Bone Metastases and Their Response to Therapy
  • Practical Methods for Estimating Metabolic Flux (Ki) to Assess Response to Therapy via Static PET Scans
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Clinical

  • Dual PET Imaging in Bronchial Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: The NETPET Score as a Prognostic Biomarker
  • Addition of 131I-MIBG to PRRT (90Y-DOTATOC) for Personalized Treatment of Selected Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors
  • SUVs Are Adequate Measures of Lesional 18F-DCFPyL Uptake in Patients with Low Prostate Cancer Disease Burden
Show more Clinical

Oncology

  • Radionuclides used in Nuclear Therapeutic Medicine: a brief history, properties and main relevant studies of radionuclides with mass number less than 100
  • Can SPECT/CT lymphoscintigraphy help predict if a sentinel node is malignant in patients with melanoma?
  • Radioimmunotherapy in Oncology
Show more Oncology

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • breast cancer
  • bone metastases
  • heterogeneity, 18F-fluoride PET/CT
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire