Prospective evaluation of planar bone scintigraphy, SPECT, SPECT/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT and whole body 1.5T MRI, including DWI, for the detection of bone metastases in high risk breast and prostate cancer patients: SKELETA clinical trial

Acta Oncologica

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 59-67

  Jambor, Ivan ^a   Kuisma, Anna ^a   Ramadan, Susan ^a   Huovinen, Riikka ^a   Sandell, Minna ^b   Kajander, Sami ^c   Kemppainen, Jukka ^c   Kauppila, Esa ^d   Auren, Joakim ^b   Merisaari, Harri ^c   Saunavaara, Jani ^b   Noponen, Tommi ^b   Minn, Heikki ^a,c   Aronen, Hannu J ^a,b   Seppänen, Marko ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^b TURKU UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^c TURKU PET CENTRE   (Finland)

^d NORTH KARELIA CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ETIDRONIC ACID TC 99M; SODIUM FLUORIDE F 18; BISPHOSPHONIC ACID DERIVATIVE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; HYDROXYMETHANEDIPHOSPHONIC ACID; TECHNETIUM DERIVATIVE;

AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BONE METASTASIS; BONE SCINTISCANNING; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PET-CT SCANNER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCINTILLATION CAMERA; SCINTISCANNING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; SPECT SCANNER; WHOLE BODY MRI; BONE; BONE TUMOR; BREAST TUMOR; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY-COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE TUMOR; SECONDARY;

BONE AND BONES; BONE NEOPLASMS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIPHOSPHONATES; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIONUCLIDE IMAGING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TECHNETIUM COMPOUNDS;

EID: 84951840268     PISSN: 0284186X     EISSN: 1651226X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2015.1027411     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62: 10-29.
2. Roodman GD. Mechanisms of bone metastasis. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 1655-64.
3. Zerbib M, Zelefsky MJ, Higano CS, Carroll PR. Conventional treatments of localized prostate cancer. Urology 2008; 72: S25-35.
4. Parker C, Nilsson S, Heinrich D, Helle SI, OSullivan JM, Fossa SD, et al. Alpha emitter radium-223 and survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 213-23.
5. Rigaud J, Tiguert R, Le NL, Karam G, Glemain P, Buzelin JM, et al. Prognostic value of bone scan in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated initially with androgen deprivation therapy. J Urol 2002; 168: 1423-6.
6. Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, Lievshitz G, Lerman H, Leibovitch I. 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: 287-97.
7. Lecouvet FE, Geukens D, Stainier A, Jamar F, Jamart J, dOthee BJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: Diagnostic and cost-effectiveness and comparison with current detection strategies. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 3281-7.
8. Schirrmeister H, Glatting G, Hetzel J, Nussle K, Arslandemir C, Buck AK, et al. Prospective evaluation of the clinical value of planar bone scans, SPECT, and (18)F-labeled NaF PET in newly diagnosed lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2001; 42: 1800-4.
9. Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Flusser G, Zuriel L, Kollender Y, Lerman H, 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: 272-8.
10. Even-Sapir E. Imaging of malignant bone involvement by morphologic, scintigraphic, and hybrid modalities1. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 1356-67.
11. Iagaru A, Mittra E, Dick DW, Gambhir SS. 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: 252-9.
12. Walker R, Kessar P, Blanchard R, Dimasi M, Harper K, DeCarvalho V, et al. Turbo STIR magnetic resonance imaging as a whole-body screening tool for metastases in patients with breast carcinoma: Preliminary clinical experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 11: 343-50.
13. Steinborn MM, Heuck AF, Tiling R, Bruegel M, Gauger L, Reiser MF. Whole-body bone marrow MRI in patients with metastatic disease to the skeletal system. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999; 23: 123-9.
14. Vanel D, Bittoun J, Tardivon A. MRI of bone metastases. Eur Radiol 1998; 8: 1345-51.
15. Grankvist J, Fisker R, Iyer V, Frund ET, Simonsen C, Christensen T, et al. MRI and PET/CT of patients with bone metastases from breast carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: e13-8.
16. Goudarzi B, Kishimoto R, Komatsu S, Ishikawa H, Yoshikawa K, Kandatsu S, et al. Detection of bone metastases using diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging: Comparison with (11)C-methionine PET and bone scintigraphy. Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 28: 372-9.
17. Ghanem N, Uhl M, Brink I, Schafer O, Kelly T, Moser E, et al. Diagnostic value of MRI in comparison to scintigraphy, PET, MS-CT and PET/CT for the detection of metastases of bone. Eur J Radiol 2005; 55: 41-55.
18. Schmidt GP, Schoenberg SO, Schmid R, Stahl R, Tiling R, Becker CR, et al. Screening for bone metastases: Whole-body MRI using a 32-channel system versus dual-modality PET-CT. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 939-49.
19. Lecouvet FE, El MJ, Collette L, Coche E, Danse E, Jamar F, et al. Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2012; 62: 68-75.
20. Trajman A, Luiz RR. McNemar chi2 test revisited: Comparing sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic examinations. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2008; 68: 77-80.
21. Rutter CM. Bootstrap estimation of diagnostic accuracy with patient-clustered data. Acad Radiol 2000; 7: 413-9.
22. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148: 839-43.
23. Messiou C, Collins DJ, Giles S, de Bono JS, Bianchini D, de Souza NM. Assessing response in bone metastases in prostate cancer with diffusion weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 2169-77.
24. Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Malghem J, Omoumi P, Simoni P. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging: Adjunct or alternative to T1-weighted MR imaging for prostate carcinoma bone metastases? Radiology 2009; 252: 624.
25. Venkitaraman R, Cook GJ, Dearnaley DP, Parker CC, Khoo V, Eeles R, et al. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of skeletal metastases in patients with prostate cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2009; 53: 241-7.