Pilot prospective evaluation of 99mTc-MDP scintigraphy, 18F NaF PET/CT, 18F FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI for detection of skeletal metastases

Clinical Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 38, Issue 7, 2013, Pages

  Iagaru, Andrei ^a   Young, Phillip ^b   Mittra, Erik ^c   Dick, David W ^d   Herfkens, Robert ^c   Gambhir, Sanjiv Sam ^e  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS AND CLINICS   (United States)

^e STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

18F FDG; 18F NaF; 99mTc MDP; PET CT; WBMRI

Indexed keywords

FAT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; MEDRONATE TECHNETIUM TC 99M; SODIUM FLUORIDE F 18; WATER;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BONE LESION; BONE METASTASIS; BONE SCINTISCANNING; BREAST METASTASIS; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECOMPOSITION; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; LIVER METASTASIS; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PILOT STUDY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; RADIATION EXPOSURE; SPINE METASTASIS; VERTEBRA BODY; WHOLE BODY MRI;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BONE NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; FLUORINE RADIOISOTOPES; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; PILOT PROJECTS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SODIUM FLUORIDE; TECHNETIUM TC 99M MEDRONATE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

EID: 84880336802     PISSN: 03639762     EISSN: 15360229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182815f64     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Savelli G, Maffioli L, Maccauro M, et al. Bone scintigraphy and the added value of SPECT (single photon emission tomography) in detecting skeletal lesions. Q J Nucl Med. 2001;45:27-37.
2. Shirazi PH, Rayudu GV, Fordham EW. Review of solitary 18F bone scan lesions. Radiology. 1974;112:369-372.
3. Grant FD, Fahey FH, Packard AB, et al. Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: Applying new technology to an old tracer. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:68-78.
4. Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Flusser G, et al. Assessment of malignant skeletal disease: Initial experience with 18F-fluoride PET/CT and comparison between 18F-fluoride PET and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:272-278.
5. Segall G, Delbeke D, Stabin MG, et al. SNM practice guideline for sodium 18F-fluoride PET/CT bone scans 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1813-1820.
6. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/ computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: Initial results from the National Oncologic PET registry. J ClinOncol. 2008;26:2155-2161.
7. Kapoor V, McCook BM, Torok FS. An introduction to PET-CT imaging. Radiographics. 2004;24:523-543.
8. Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Herborn CU, et al. Whole-body MR Imaging: Evaluation of patients for metastases. Radiology. 2004;233:139-148.
9. Pichler B, Judenhofer M, Wehrl H. PET/MRI hybrid imaging: Devices and initial results. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1077-1086.
10. Zaidi H, Ojha N, Morich M, et al. Design and performance evaluation of a whole-body ingenuity TF PET-MRI system. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56: 3091-3106.
11. Kitajima K, Suzuki K, Nakamoto Y, et al. Low-dose non-enhanced CT versus full-dose contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for the diagnosis of uterine cancer recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37: 1490-1498.
12. Shamim S, Kumar R, Shandal V, et al. FDG PET/CT evaluation of treatment response in patients with recurrent colorectal cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2011; 36:11-16.
13. Onishi Y, Ohno Y, Koyama H, et al. Non-small cell carcinoma: Comparison of postoperative intra- and extrathoracic recurrence assessment capability of qualitatively and/or quantitatively assessed FDG-PET/CT and standard radiological examinations. Eur J Radiol. 2011;79:473-479.
14. Schmidt M, Schmalenbach M, Jungehlsing M, et al. 18F-FDG PET for detecting recurrent head and neck cancer, local lymph node involvement and distant metastases. Comparison of qualitative visual and semiquantitative analysis. Nuclear-Medizin. 2004;43:91-101.
15. Gallowitsch H-J, Kresnik E, Gasser J, et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positronemission tomography in the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma: A comparison to conventional imaging. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:250-256.
16. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: Consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:571-578.
17. Graham MM, Badawi RD, Wahl RL. Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at U.S. Academic Medical Centers: An Imaging Response Assessment Team survey. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:311-317.
18. Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, et al. 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. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:287-297.
19. Ben Haim S, Israel O. Breast cancer: Role of SPECT and PET in imaging bone metastases. Semin Nucl Med. 2009;39:408-415.
20. Iagaru A, Mittra E, Dick D, et al. Prospective evaluation of (99m)Tc MDP scintigraphy, (18)F NaF PET/CT, and (18)F FDG PET/CT for detection of skeletal metastases. Mol Imaging Biol. 2012;14:252-259.
21. Withofs N, Grayet B, Tancredi T, et al. 18F-fluoride PET/CT for assessing bone involvement in prostate and breast cancers. Nucl Med Commun. 2011;32: 168-176.
22. Cook G, Parker C, Chua S, et al. 18F-fluoride PET: Changes in uptake as a method to assess response in bone metastases from castrate-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with 223Ra-chloride (Alpharadin). EJNMMI Res. 2011;1:2191-2196.
23. Feldman F, van Heertum R, Manos C. 18FDG PET scanning of benign and malignant musculoskeletal lesions. Skeletal Radiol. 2003;32:201-208.
24. Fogelman I, Cook G, Israel O, et al. Positron emission tomography and bone metastases. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:135-142.
25. Krger S, Buck A, Mottaghy F, et al. Detection of bone metastases in patients with lung cancer: 99mTc-MDP planar bone scintigraphy, 18F-fluoride PET or 18F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1807-1812.
26. Shulkin B, Goodin G, McCarvilleM, et al. Bone and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography scanning for the assessment of osseous involvement in Hodgkin lymphoma in children and young adults. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1794-1802.
27. Freedman A. Follicular lymphoma: 2011 update on diagnosis and management. Am J Hematol. 2011;86:768-775.
28. Hawkins D, Conrad E, Butrynski J, et al. [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-D- glucosepositron emission tomography response is associated with outcome for extremity osteosarcoma in children and young adults. Cancer. 2009;115:3519-3525.
29. Benz MR, Dry SM, Eilber FC, et al. Correlation between glycolytic phenotype and tumor grade in soft-tissue sarcomas by 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1174-1181.
30. Iagaru A, Quon A, McDougall IR, et al. F-18 FDG PET/CT evaluation of osseous and soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Nucl Med. 2006;31:754-760.
31. Uematsu T, Yuen S, Yukisawa S, et al. Comparison of FDG PET and SPECT for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184:1266-1273.
32. Nakai T, Okuyama C, Kubota T, et al. Pitfalls of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:1253-1258.
33. Jadvar H, Pinski J, Conti P. FDG PET in suspected recurrent and metastatic prostate cancer. Oncol Rep. 2003;10:1485-1488.
34. Shiiba M, Ishihara K, Kimura G, et al. Evaluation of primary prostate cancer using (11)C-methionine-PET/CT and (18)F-FDG-PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26:138-145.
35. Meirelles GSP, Schöder H, Ravizzini GC, et al. Prognostic value of baseline [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and 99mTc-MDP bone scan in progressing metastatic prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16:6093-6099.
36. Iagaru A, Mittra E, Yaghoubi SS, et al. Novel strategy for a cocktail 18F-fluoride and 18F-FDG PET/CT scan for evaluation of malignancy: Results of the pilotphase study. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:501-505.
37. Lin F, Rao J, Mittra E, et al. Prospective comparison of combined 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET/CT vs. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for detection of malignancy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:262-270.
38. Boss A, Bisdas S, Kolb A, et al. Hybrid PET/MRI of intracranial masses: Initial experiences and comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2010;51: 1198-1205.
39. Miese F, Scherer A, Ostendorf B, et al. Hybrid (18)F-FDG PET-MRI of the hand in rheumatoid arthritis: Initial results. Clin Rheumatol. 2011;30: 1247-1250.
40. Boss A, Stegger L, Bisdas S, et al. Feasibility of simultaneous PET/MR imaging in the head and upper neck area. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1439-1446.
41. Segall G, Delbeke D, Stabin M, et al. SNM practice guideline for sodium 18F-fluoride PET/CT bone scans 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1813-1820.
42. Eiber M, Holzapfel K, Ganter C, et al. Whole-body MRI including diffusionweighted imaging (DWI) for patients with recurring prostate cancer: Technical feasibility and assessment of lesion conspicuity in DWI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;33:1160-1170.
43. Schaefer J, Schlemmer H-P. Total-body MR-imaging in oncology. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:2000-2015.
44. Schmidt G, Wintersperger B, Graser A, et al. High-resolution whole-body magnetic resonance imaging applications at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: A comparative study. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:449-459.