Detection of bone metastases: assessment of integrated FDG PET/CT imaging.

PURPOSE To retrospectively evaluate the positive predictive value (PPV) of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in the identification of malignant bone lesions when the PET and CT findings are discordant and concordant. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study conformed to HIPAA standards, and the need for informed consent was waived by the institutional review board that approved the study. FDG PET/CT reports of 712 patients were reviewed to identify patients with malignant bone lesions. Fifty-nine patients (30 female and 29 male patients; age range, 10-82 years) with 113 lesions were analyzed. With use of confirmation from histopathologic examination or clinical follow-up, the PPVs of the integrated examination and of the stand-alone CT and PET components of the examination were calculated. The results were stratified according to cancer type, chemotherapy status, and number of bone lesions and were compared by using Fisher exact tests. RESULTS Of 47 lesions with positive findings at both PET and CT, 46 were malignant and one was benign, for a PPV of 98%. Of 31 lesions with positive findings at PET and negative findings at CT, 19 were malignant and 12 were benign, for a PPV of 61%. Of 35 lesions with negative findings at PET and positive findings at CT, six were malignant and 29 were benign, for a PPV of 17%. Independently, the PPV of all lesions with positive findings at PET was significantly higher than that of all lesions with positive findings at CT. Chemotherapy status for lesions with positive findings at CT and the number of lesions per patient had a statistically significant effect on the PPV of examinations (P = .02 and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSION PET/CT has a very high PPV for bone metastases (98%) when the findings at PET and CT are concordant; however, in lesions with discordant PET and CT findings at the integrated examination, PPV is markedly diminished.

[1]  Ora Israel,et al.  Cancer Recurrence: Diagnostic Value and Impact on Patient Management , 2004 .

[2]  Ora Israel,et al.  Positron emission tomography and bone metastases. , 2005, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[3]  S S Gambhir,et al.  PET in oncology: will it replace the other modalities? , 1997, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[4]  Osman Ratib,et al.  Comparison between 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography hardware fusion for staging of patients with lymphoma. , 2004, Molecular imaging and biology : MIB : the official publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging.

[5]  M. Endo,et al.  Comparison of FDG PET and SPECT for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  R. Rubens,et al.  Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  J. Herndon,et al.  Comparison of whole-body FDG-PET to bone scan for detection of bone metastases in patients with a new diagnosis of lung cancer. , 2004, Lung cancer.

[8]  M. Langer,et al.  Diagnostic value of MRI in comparison to scintigraphy, PET, MS-CT and PET/CT for the detection of metastases of bone. , 2005, European journal of radiology.

[9]  R. Wahl,et al.  CT appearance of bone metastases detected with FDG PET as part of the same PET/CT examination. , 2005, Radiology.

[10]  J Kotzerke,et al.  Sensitivity in detecting osseous lesions depends on anatomic localization: planar bone scintigraphy versus 18F PET. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[11]  P. Rigo,et al.  Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the detection of bone metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer , 1998, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  R. Wahl,et al.  Prevalence and Patterns of Bone Metastases Detected with Positron Emission Tomography Using F-18 FDG , 2003, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[13]  Osman Ratib,et al.  Comparison between 18F-FDG PET, in-line PET/CT, and software fusion for restaging of recurrent colorectal cancer. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  I. Fogelman,et al.  The role of positron emission tomography in the management of bone metastases , 2000, Cancer.

[15]  U. Metser,et al.  Malignant involvement of the spine: assessment by 18F-FDG PET/CT. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[16]  S. Gambhir Molecular imaging of cancer with positron emission tomography , 2002, Nature Reviews Cancer.