Factors influencing visualization of vertebral metastases on MR imaging versus bone scintigraphy.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the location and size of vertebral body metastases influence the difference in detection rates between MR imaging and bone scintigraphy. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively evaluated the vertebral body lesions detected on MR imaging in 74 patients with known widely disseminated metastatic disease. Three radiologists independently reviewed the MR images and bone scintigraphs. MR imaging findings included lesion size and its spatial relationship to the bony cortex (intramedullary, subcortical, and transcortical) and results were correlated with those of planar technetium 99m bone scintigraphy. RESULTS Findings on bone scans were negative for all intramedullary lesions without cortical involvement shown on MR imaging, regardless of their size. Findings on bone scans (71.3% for transcortical and 33.8% for subcortical) were frequently positive for lesions with cortical involvement (trans- or subcortical), and the probability of positive findings on bone scans was also influenced by the lesion size. Statistical analysis showed a positive correlation among cortical involvement, lesion size, and positive findings on bone scintigraphy (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION Location (the presence of cortical bone involvement on MR imaging) and size of the vertebral body metastases appear to be important contributing factors to the difference in detection rates between MR imaging and bone scintigraphy. Cortical involvement is likely the cause of positive findings on bone scans. Early vertebral metastases tend to be small and located in the medullary cavity without cortical involvement, and therefore, findings may be positive on MR images but negative on bone scans.

[1]  W. Shih Vertebral SPECT bone scintigraphy should be compared with MR imaging for vertebral metastases. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  L. Horvath,et al.  Total-body echo-planar MR imaging in the staging of breast cancer: comparison with conventional methods--early experience. , 1999, Radiology.

[3]  E. Melhem,et al.  A comparison of whole-body turboSTIR MR imaging and planar 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate scintigraphy in the examination of patients with suspected skeletal metastases. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Anatomic Distribution of Metastases in the Vertebral Body and Modes of Hematogenous Spread , 1996, Spine.

[5]  R. Andrews Atlas of Bone Pathology: With Clinical and Radiographic Correlations , 1992 .

[6]  F. Poon,et al.  Vertebral metastases and an equivocal bone scan: value of magnetic resonance imaging , 1992, Nuclear medicine communications.

[7]  G. Sze,et al.  Current imaging in spinal metastatic disease. , 1991, Seminars in oncology.

[8]  J L Bloem,et al.  Detection of vertebral metastases: comparison between MR imaging and bone scintigraphy. , 1991, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[9]  P. Colletti,et al.  Spinal MR imaging in suspected metastases: correlation with skeletal scintigraphy. , 1991, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[10]  N. Savaraj,et al.  Detection of occult bone metastasis by MRI scan. , 1990, The Journal of the Florida Medical Association.

[11]  L. Bassett,et al.  An integrated approach to the evaluation of metastatic bone disease. , 1990, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[12]  T. A. Powers,et al.  Correlative Radionuclide and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Evaluation of the Spine , 1989, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[13]  D. Podoloff,et al.  “Sub”-Super Scan—Manifestation of Bone Marrow Metastases? , 1989, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[14]  S. Perlman,et al.  False-negative bone scan in extensive metastatic disease: CT and MR findings. , 1989, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[15]  R. Tadmor,et al.  Early MR Demonstration of Spinal Metastases in Patients with Normal Radiographs and CT and Radionuclide Bone Scans , 1989, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[16]  W T Yuh,et al.  Vertebral compression fractures: distinction between benign and malignant causes with MR imaging. , 1989, Radiology.

[17]  C. Jahre,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of spinal metastases , 1988, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[18]  K. Friedl,et al.  Early diagnosis of spinal metastases by CT and MR studies. , 1988 .

[19]  W. Smoker,et al.  Use of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of metastatic spinal disease. , 1987, Neurosurgery.

[20]  W. Enneking,et al.  Primary musculoskeletal tumors: examination with MR imaging compared with conventional modalities. , 1987, Radiology.

[21]  A. Shields,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of bone marrow disorders. , 1986, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[22]  R. Daffner,et al.  MRI in the detection of malignant infiltration of bone marrow. , 1986, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  F. Sim,et al.  Bone tumors: magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography. , 1985, Radiology.

[24]  Pagani Jj,et al.  Imaging bone metastases. , 1982 .

[25]  M. Goris,et al.  Photopenic Lesions in Bone Scintigraphy , 1980, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[26]  J. Roylance Book reviewThe Spine. A Radiological Text and Atlas. By EpsteinBernard S., 4th edition, pp. 856. Illust. (Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia; distributed in U.K. by Henry Kimpton, London), £27·65. , 1977 .

[27]  B. Siegel,et al.  Skeletal uptake of 99mTc-diphosphonate in relation to local bone blood flow. , 1976, Radiology.

[28]  B. Epstein The spine: A radiological text and atlas , 1976 .

[29]  S. Larson,et al.  Pathogenesis of the positive bone scan and its implications for the detection of metastatic osteosarcomas , 1971 .

[30]  G. Edelstyn,et al.  The radiological demonstration of osseous metastases. Experimental observations. , 1967, Clinical radiology.