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 ReportGeneral Clinical Specialties Track

99mTc-MDP scintigraphy vs. 18F-NaF PET/CT for detection of skeletal metastases

Fengyu Wu, Mehran Jamali, Negin Hatami, Ida Sonni, Lucia Baratto, Haiwei Henry Guo, Andrew Quon, Erik Mittra and Andrei Iagaru
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2016, 57 (supplement 2) 599;
Fengyu Wu
1Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology Stanford University Stanford CA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mehran Jamali
1Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology Stanford University Stanford CA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Negin Hatami
1Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology Stanford University Stanford CA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ida Sonni
1Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology Stanford University Stanford CA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lucia Baratto
1Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology Stanford University Stanford CA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Haiwei Henry Guo
1Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology Stanford University Stanford CA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Quon
1Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology 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
1Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology Stanford University Stanford CA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrei Iagaru
1Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology 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
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

599

Objectives 99mTc-MDP bone scanning (BS) is highly sensitive and cost-effective, thus having been for decades the standard method for nuclear imaging of the skeletal system. Owing to the pharmacokinetic properties of 18F-NaF and better resolution of PET/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT has attracted clinical interest. Several published studies reported the value of 18F-NaF PET/CT for skeletal imaging and indicated that it might be superior over 99mTc-MDP BS in detecting bone metastases. However, 18F-NaF PET/CT did not replace 99mTc-MDP BS in routine clinical practice for a variety of reasons. Here we reviewed our clinical experience with 99mTc-MDP BS and 18F-NaF PET/CT for detection of bone metastases.

Methods This is a retrospective study (Sep 2007 - Oct 2015) of 77 patients with proven malignancy (51 prostate cancer, 12 sarcoma, 7 breast cancer, 7 other cancers), who had 99mTc-MDP BS and 18F-NaF PET/CT for evaluation of skeletal metastases. There were 65 men and 12 women, 19-88 year-old (average: 62.8±15.1). 99mTc-MDP BS and 18F-NaF PET/CT were performed within 2-30 days (average: 22±9.7). The lesions detected with each test were tabulated and the results compared.

Results Neither scan identified bone metastases in 27/77 patients (27%). Skeletal metastases were detected by 99mTc-MDP BS in 41/77 patients (53%) and by 18F-NaF PET/CT in 50/77 patients (65%). For the group with skeletal metastases on both scans, the extent of disease was greater by 18F NaF-PET/CT over 99mTc-MDP BS in 27/41 patients (66%) and the same in 14/41 patients (34%). 18F-NaF PET/CT showed skeletal metastases not seen on 99mTc-MDP BS in 9/77 patients (12%).

Conclusions The evaluation of the extent of skeletal metastases with 18F-NaF PET/CT was superior over 99mTc-MDP BS in our cohort. In addition, 12% of the patients had bone metastases seen only on 18F-NaF PET/CT. However, given the concordance between the results of the two scans, it may be possible to create a clinical workflow to evaluate patients referred for bone scintigraphy with a 99mTc-MDP BS first, followed by 18F-NaF PET/CT only for patients with negative or equivocal 99mTc-MDP BS who continue to have high clinical suspicion for bone metastases.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 57, Issue supplement 2
May 1, 2016
  • 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.
99mTc-MDP scintigraphy vs. 18F-NaF PET/CT for detection of skeletal metastases
(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
99mTc-MDP scintigraphy vs. 18F-NaF PET/CT for detection of skeletal metastases
Fengyu Wu, Mehran Jamali, Negin Hatami, Ida Sonni, Lucia Baratto, Haiwei Henry Guo, Andrew Quon, Erik Mittra, Andrei Iagaru
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2016, 57 (supplement 2) 599;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
99mTc-MDP scintigraphy vs. 18F-NaF PET/CT for detection of skeletal metastases
Fengyu Wu, Mehran Jamali, Negin Hatami, Ida Sonni, Lucia Baratto, Haiwei Henry Guo, Andrew Quon, Erik Mittra, Andrei Iagaru
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2016, 57 (supplement 2) 599;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

General Clinical Specialties Track

  • Quantitative Evaluation of Parathyroid Adenoma and Hyperplasia in Reference to Thyroid using Tc-99m MIBI SPECT/CT
  • A primitive study for clinical application of 18F-AlF-NOTA-octreotide PET/CT in combination with 18F-FDG PET/CT for imaging neuroendocrine neoplasms
  • Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detection of disease burden and response assessment in patients with myeloid sarcoma
Show more General Clinical Specialties Track

Outcomes/Comparative Effectiveness Research & Radiation Safety

  • Diversifying the Subject Cohorts in Total-Body PET Research: A Feasibility Study
  • Cost-effectiveness of F-18 FDG PET/CT in lung and colorectal cancer: a systematic review and narrative synthesis
  • Diagnostic efficacy of 99mTc-sulfur colloid lymphoscintigraphy in chyle leak and incremental value of SPECT-CT in localizing the site of chyle leak
Show more Outcomes/Comparative Effectiveness Research & Radiation Safety

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire