Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients

Background:Despite improvements in treatments, metastatic breast cancer remains difficult to cure. Bones constitute the most common site of first-time recurrence, occurring in 40–75% of cases. Therefore, evaluation for possible osseous metastases is crucial. Technetium 99 (99Tc) bone scintigraphy and fluorodexossyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (PET-CT) are the most commonly used techniques to assess osseous metastasis. PET magnetic resonance (PET-MR) imaging is an innovative technique still under investigation. We compared the capability of PET-MR to that of same-day PET-CT to assess osseous metastases in patients with breast cancer.Methods:One hundred and nine patients with breast cancer, who underwent same-day contrast enhanced (CE)-PET-CT and CE-PET-MR, were evaluated. CE-PET-CT and CE-PET-MR studies were interpreted by consensus by a radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician. Correlations with prior imaging and follow-up studies were used as the reference standard. Binomial confidence intervals and a χ2 test were used for categorical data, and paired t-test was used for the SUVmax data; a non-informative prior Bayesian approach was used to estimate and compare the specificities.Results:Osseous metastases affected 25 out 109 patients. Metastases were demonstrated by CE-PET-CT in 22 out of 25 patients (88%±7%), and by CE-PET-MR in 25 out of 25 patients (100%). CE-PET-CT revealed 90 osseous metastases and CE-PET-MR revealed 141 osseous metastases (P<0.001). The estimated sensitivity of CE-PET-CT and CE-PET-MR were 0.8519 and 0.9630, respectively. The estimated specificity for CE-FDG-PET-MR was 0.9884. The specificity of CE-PET-CT cannot be determined from patient-level data, because CE-PET-CT yielded a false-positive lesion in a patient who also had other, true metastases.Conclusions:CE-PET-MR detected a higher number of osseous metastases than did same-day CE-PET-CT, and was positive for 12% of the patients deemed osseous metastasis-negative on the basis of CE-PET-CT.

[1]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Factors influencing visualization of vertebral metastases on MR imaging versus bone scintigraphy. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  Jingfei Ma,et al.  Conspicuity of bone metastases on fast Dixon-based multisequence whole-body MRI: clinical utility per sequence. , 2013, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[3]  Y. Shibamoto,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-2-deoxy-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography for pn2 lymph nodes in patients with lung cancer , 2009, Acta radiologica.

[4]  H. Schlemmer,et al.  A look ahead: PET/MR versus PET/CT , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[5]  A. Alavi,et al.  When should we recommend use of dual time-point and delayed time-point imaging techniques in FDG PET? , 2013, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[6]  G. V. von Schulthess,et al.  Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  Thomas Beyer,et al.  Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. , 2003, Radiology.

[8]  J. Lam,et al.  Staging of Renal Cell Carcinoma , 2008 .

[9]  S. Schoenberg,et al.  Screening for bone metastases: whole-body MRI using a 32-channel system versus dual-modality PET-CT , 2007, European Radiology.

[10]  Michael Frankfurter,et al.  Cancer Principles Practice Of Oncology , 2016 .

[11]  Laurence Collette,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? , 2012, European urology.

[12]  L. Rybak,et al.  Radiological imaging for the diagnosis of bone metastases. , 2001, The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology.

[13]  C. Ganter,et al.  Preliminary Results for Characterization of Pelvic Lymph Nodes in Patients With Prostate Cancer by Diffusion-Weighted MR-Imaging , 2010, Investigative radiology.

[14]  E. Imhoff,et al.  Comparison of whole-body MRI with automatic moving table technique and bone scintigraphy for screening for bone metastases in patients with breast cancer , 2004, European Radiology.

[15]  Jingfei Ma,et al.  Imaging bone metastases in breast cancer: techniques and recommendations for diagnosis. , 2009, The Lancet. Oncology.

[16]  S. Nawano,et al.  Hepatic metastases: diffusion-weighted sensitivity-encoding versus SPIO-enhanced MR imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

[17]  Sinchun Hwang.  Imaging of lymphoma of the musculoskeletal system. , 2010, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[18]  Si-yang Wang,et al.  Comparison of 18 FDG PET-CT and bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer patients. A meta-analysis. , 2013, Surgical oncology.

[19]  Andrea Soricelli,et al.  Clinical impact of PET/MR imaging in patients with cancer undergoing same-day PET/CT: initial experience in 134 patients--a hypothesis-generating exploratory study. , 2013, Radiology.

[20]  D. Collins,et al.  Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cancer: current status and research directions. , 2011, Radiology.

[21]  W. Oyen,et al.  FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0 , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[22]  M. Forsting,et al.  Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) compared to FDG PET/CT for whole-body breast cancer staging , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[23]  D. Collins,et al.  Optimising diffusion weighted MRI for imaging metastatic and myeloma bone disease and assessing reproducibility , 2011, European Radiology.

[24]  A. Padhani,et al.  Bony metastases: assessing response to therapy with whole-body diffusion MRI , 2011, Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society.

[25]  Felix Nensa,et al.  Whole-body [18F]FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT in the assessment of bone lesions in oncological patients: initial results , 2014, European Radiology.

[26]  N. Houssami,et al.  Imaging bone metastases in breast cancer: evidence on comparative test accuracy. , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[27]  James Nagarajah,et al.  Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer , 2011, Acta radiologica.

[28]  Hans-Jürgen Gallowitsch,et al.  F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron-Emission Tomography in the Diagnosis of Tumor Recurrence and Metastases in the Follow-Up of Patients With Breast Carcinoma: A Comparison to Conventional Imaging , 2003, Investigative radiology.

[29]  Stacy E. Smith,et al.  Hematopoietic tumors and metastases involving bone. , 2011, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[30]  B. Branstetter,et al.  PET/CT in head and neck oncology: State‐of‐the‐art 2013 , 2014, The Laryngoscope.

[31]  Wei Zhang,et al.  Diagnostic value of whole‐body magnetic resonance imaging for bone metastases: a systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2011, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[32]  G. C. Tiao,et al.  Bayesian inference in statistical analysis , 1973 .

[33]  D. Loeffelbein,et al.  Performance of Whole-Body Integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR in Comparison to PET/CT for Evaluation of Malignant Bone Lesions , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[34]  H. Alkadhi,et al.  Detection Rate, Location, and Size of Pulmonary Nodules in Trimodality PET/CT-MR: Comparison of Low-Dose CT and Dixon-Based MR Imaging , 2013, Investigative radiology.

[35]  V. Devita,et al.  Cancer : Principles and Practice of Oncology , 1982 .

[36]  Rakesh Kumar,et al.  Carcinoma Endometrium: Role of 18-FDG PET/CT for Detection of Suspected Recurrence , 2012, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[37]  Matthias Hofmann,et al.  Hybrid PET/MRI of Intracranial Masses: Initial Experiences and Comparison to PET/CT , 2010, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[38]  C. Binkert,et al.  Comparison of diffusion-weighted whole body MRI and skeletal scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate or breast carcinoma , 2010, Skeletal Radiology.

[39]  Gang Huang,et al.  Optimizing delayed scan time for FDG PET: Comparison of the early and late delayed scan , 2008, Nuclear medicine communications.

[40]  S. Yasuda,et al.  Whole body PET for the evaluation of bony metastases in patients with breast cancer: comparison with 99Tcm-MDP bone scintigraphy , 2001, Nuclear medicine communications.

[41]  E. Laffon,et al.  Assessment of dual-time-point 18F-FDG-PET imaging for pulmonary lesions , 2009, Nuclear medicine communications.

[42]  Sibylle Ziegler,et al.  Comparison of integrated whole-body [11C]choline PET/MR with PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer , 2013, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.