A Prospective Study Comparing (99m)Tc-Hydroxyethylene-Diphosphonate Planar Bone Scintigraphy and Whole-Body SPECT/CT with (18)F-Fluoride PET/CT and (18)F-Fluoride PET/MRI for Diagnosing Bone Metastases.

We prospectively evaluated and compared the diagnostic performance of 99mTc-hydroxyethylene-diphosphonate (99mTc-HDP) planar bone scintigraphy (pBS), 99mTc-HDP SPECT/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT, and 18F-NaF PET/MRI for the detection of bone metastases. Methods: One hundred seventeen patients with histologically proven malignancy referred for clinical pBS were prospectively enrolled. pBS and whole-body SPECT/CT were performed followed by 18F-NaF PET/CT within 9 d. 18F-NaF PET/MRI was also performed in 46 patients. Results: Bone metastases were confirmed in 16 patients and excluded in 101, which was lower than expected. The number of equivocal scans was significantly higher for pBS than for SPECT/CT and PET/CT (18 vs. 5 and 6, respectively; P = 0.004 and 0.01, respectively). When equivocal readings were excluded, no statistically significant difference in sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, or overall accuracy were found when comparing the different imaging techniques. In the per-patient analysis, equivocal scans were either assumed positive for metastases ("pessimistic analysis") or assumed negative for metastases ("optimistic analysis"). The percentages of misdiagnosed patients for the pessimistic analysis were 21%, 15%, 9%, and 7% for pBS, SPECT/CT, PET/CT, and PET/MRI, respectively. Corresponding figures for the optimistic analysis were 9%, 12%, 5%, and 7%. In those patients identified as having bone metastases according to the reference standard, SPECT/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT, and PET/MRI detected additional lesions compared with pBS in 31%, 63%, and 71%, respectively. Conclusion:18F-NaF PET/CT and whole-body SPECT/CT resulted in a significant reduction of equivocal readings compared with pBS, which implies an improved diagnostic confidence. However, the clinical benefit of using, for example, 18F-NaF PET/CT or PET/MRI as compared with SPECT/CT and pBS in this patient population with a relatively low prevalence of bone metastases (14%) is likely limited. This conclusion is influenced by the low prevalence of patients with osseous metastases. There may well be significant differences in the sensitivity of SPECT/CT, PET/CT, and PET/MRI compared with pBS, but a larger patient population or a patient population with a higher prevalence of bone metastases would have to be studied to demonstrate this.

Löfgren J ，Mortensen J ，Rasmussen SH ，Madsen C ，Loft A ，Hansen AE ，Oturai P ，Jensen KE ，Mørk ML ，Reichkendler M ，Højgaard L ，Fischer BM ... -  《-》

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.

Jambor I ，Kuisma A ，Ramadan S ，Huovinen R ，Sandell M ，Kajander S ，Kemppainen J ，Kauppila E ，Auren J ，Merisaari H ，Saunavaara J ，Noponen T ，Minn H ，Aronen HJ ，Seppänen M ... -  《-》

Prospective Comparison of 99mTc-MDP Scintigraphy, Combined 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG PET/CT, and Whole-Body MRI in Patients with Breast and Prostate Cancer.

We prospectively evaluated the use of combined (18)F-NaF/(18)F-FDG PET/CT in patients with breast and prostate cancer and compared the results with those for (99m)Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy and whole-body MRI. Thirty patients (15 women with breast cancer and 15 men with prostate cancer) referred for standard-of-care bone scintigraphy were prospectively enrolled in this study. (18)F-NaF/(18)F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI were performed after bone scintigraphy. The whole-body MRI protocol consisted of both unenhanced and contrast-enhanced sequences. Lesions detected with each test were tabulated, and the results were compared. For extraskeletal lesions, (18)F-NaF/(18)F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI had no statistically significant differences in sensitivity (92.9% vs. 92.9%, P = 1.00), positive predictive value (81.3% vs. 86.7%, P = 0.68), or accuracy (76.5% vs. 82.4%, P = 0.56). However, (18)F-NaF/(18)F-FDG PET/CT showed significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy than whole-body MRI (96.2% vs. 81.4%, P < 0.001, 89.8% vs. 74.7%, P = 0.01) and bone scintigraphy (96.2% vs. 64.6%, P < 0.001, 89.8% vs. 65.9%, P < 0.001) for the detection of skeletal lesions. Overall, (18)F-NaF/(18)F-FDG PET/CT showed higher sensitivity and accuracy than whole-body MRI (95.7% vs. 83.3%, P < 0.002, 87.6% vs. 76.0%, P < 0.02) but not statistically significantly so when compared with a combination of whole-body MRI and bone scintigraphy (95.7% vs. 91.6%, P = 0.17, 87.6% vs. 83.0%, P = 0.53). (18)F-NaF/(18)F-FDG PET/CT showed no significant difference from a combination of (18)F-NaF/(18)F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI. No statistically significant differences in positive predictive value were noted among the 3 examinations. (18)F-NaF/(18)F-FDG PET/CT is superior to whole-body MRI and (99m)Tc-MDP scintigraphy for evaluation of skeletal disease extent. Further, (18)F-NaF/(18)F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI detected extraskeletal disease that may change the management of these patients. (18)F-NaF/(18)F-FDG PET/CT provides diagnostic ability similar to that of a combination of whole-body MRI and bone scintigraphy in patients with breast and prostate cancer. Larger cohorts are needed to confirm these preliminary findings, ideally using the newly introduced simultaneous PET/MRI scanners.

Minamimoto R ，Loening A ，Jamali M ，Barkhodari A ，Mosci C ，Jackson T ，Obara P ，Taviani V ，Gambhir SS ，Vasanawala S ，Iagaru A ... -  《-》

Prospective comparison of whole-body bone SPECT and sodium 18F-fluoride PET in the detection of bone metastases from breast cancer.

Abikhzer G ，Srour S ，Fried G ，Drumea K ，Kozlener E ，Frenkel A ，Israel O ，Fogelman I ，Kagna O ... -  《-》

(99m)Tc-HDP bone scintigraphy and (18)F-sodiumfluoride PET/CT in primary staging of patients with prostate cancer.

Wondergem M ，van der Zant FM ，Knol RJJ ，Burgers AMG ，Bos SD ，de Jong IJ ，Pruim J ... -  《-》