Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Evaluation of bone scan index change over time on automated calculation in bone scintigraphy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Bone scintigraphy (bone scan) is useful in detecting metastatic bone lesions through visual assessment of hot spots. A semi-quantitative analysis method that evaluates bone scan images has been eagerly anticipated. BONENAVI is software that enables automatic assessment of bone scan index (BSI). BSI is useful for stratifying cancer patients and monitoring their therapeutic response. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the BONENAVI reading in determining BSI and hot spots at different time intervals after radioisotope injection.

Methods

We evaluated 32 patients, including 22 males and 10 females. Ten patients had breast cancer, 20 patients had prostate cancer, and 2 had malignant pheochromocytoma. Patients were injected with 740 MBq of 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate and bone scintigraphy was performed at 2, 4, and 6 h after injection on each patient. The BSI and the number of hot spots were obtained from BONENAVI software. Bone scan images were also visually assessed to exclude false positives due to artifacts. Analyses were performed in all lesions, selected true lesions, segment based and cancer type based. Non-parametric statistical analyses for pairwise multiple group comparison were performed using Friedman test followed with post hoc analysis.

Results

The BSIs and the number of hot spots were significantly increased with time, with significant differences between each of time points (P < 0.001). Analysis of regional BSI (rBSI) and hot spot number changes of selected 15 true lesions also showed similar increase (P < 0.001). In general, the pelvic segment was the most prone to rBSI changes and the chest segment was the most prone to hot spot number changes. Visual assessment showed that BONENAVI diagnosed some typical artifacts as metastases (hot spots).

Conclusion

BONENAVI reading of BSIs and hot spot numbers was highly affected by acquisition time. In serial or follow-up examinations (in particular, for monitoring therapeutic efficacy), acquisition time should be fixed for each patient. Cautious interpretation should be made on segments with high physiological uptake. BONENAVI reading was prone to misinterpretation of artifacts. Visual assessment is necessary to rule out this possibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Coleman RE. Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:6243s–9s.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Erdi YE, Humm JL, Imbriaco M, Yeung H, Larson SM. Quantitative bone metastases analysis based on image segmentation. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1401–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Imbriaco M, Larson SM, Yeung HW, Mawlawi OR, Erdi Y, Venkatraman ES, et al. A new parameter for measuring metastatic bone involvement by prostate cancer: the bone scan index. Clin Cancer Res. 1998;4:1765–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sadik M, Suurkula M, Hoglund P, Jarund A, Edenbrandt L. Quality of planar whole-body bone scan interpretations—a nationwide survey. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1464–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sadik M, Hamadeh I, Nordblom P, Suurkula M, Hoglund P, Ohlsson M, et al. Computer-assisted interpretation of planar whole-body bone scans. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1958–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Agatonovic-Kustrin S, Beresford R. Basic concepts of artificial neural network (ANN) modeling and its application in pharmaceutical research. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2000;22:717–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tokuda O, Harada Y, Ohishi Y, Matsunaga N, Edenbrandt L. Investigation of computer-aided diagnosis system for bone scans: a retrospective analysis in 406 patients. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28:329–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ulmert D, Kaboteh R, Fox JJ, Savage C, Evans MJ, Lilja H, et al. A novel automated platform for quantifying the extent of skeletal tumour involvement in prostate cancer patients using the bone scan index. Eur Urol. 2012;62:78–84.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wakabayashi H, Nakajima K, Mizokami A, Namiki M, Inaki A, Taki J, et al. Bone scintigraphy as a new imaging biomarker: the relationship between bone scan index and bone metabolic markers in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. Ann Nucl Med. 2013;27:802–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kikuchi A, Onoguchi M, Horikoshi H, Sjostrand K, Edenbrandt L. Automated segmentation of the skeleton in whole-body bone scans: influence of difference in atlas. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:947–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nakajima K, Nakajima Y, Horikoshi H, Ueno M, Wakabayashi H, Shiga T, et al. Enhanced diagnostic accuracy for quantitative bone scan using an artificial neural network system: a Japanese multi-center database project. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3:83.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Donohoe KJ, Henkin RE, Royal HD, Brown ML, Collier BD, O’Mara RE, et al. Procedure guideline for bone scintigraphy: 1.0. Society of Nuclear Medicine. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1903–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bombardieri E, Aktolun C, Baum R, Bishof-Delaloye A, Buscombe J, Chatal J, et al. Bone scintigraphy: procedure guidelines for tumour imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:B99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Saha GB. Fundamentals of nuclear pharmacy. New York: Springer Science + Business Media; 2010. p. 297.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Karesh SM. Principles of radiopharmacy. In: Henkin RE, editor. Nuclear medicine. 2nd ed. Michigan: Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p. 334.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rosenthall L, Arzoumanian A, Damtew BU, Tremblay J. A crossover study comparing Tc-99m-labeled HMDP and MDP in patients. Clin Nucl Med. 1981;6:353–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Duzee BF, Schaefer JA, Ball JD, Chilton HM, Cowan RJ, Kuni C, et al. Relative lesion detection ability of Tc-99m HMDP and Tc-99m MDP: concise communication. J Nucl Med. 1984;25:166–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lecouvet FE, Talbot JN, Messiou C, Bourguet P, Liu Y, de Souza NM, et al. Monitoring the response of bone metastases to treatment with magnetic resonance imaging and nuclear medicine techniques: a review and position statement by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer imaging group. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:2519–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Soloway MS, Hardeman SW, Hickey D, Raymond J, Todd B, Soloway S, et al. Stratification of patients with metastatic prostate cancer based on extent of disease on initial bone scan. Cancer. 1988;61:195–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gnanasegaran G, Cook G, Fogelman I. Musculoskeletal system. In: Biersack H, Freeman LM, editors. Clinical nuclear medicine. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2007. p. 241.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Weiner RE. Bone imaging radiopharmaceutical. In: Henkin RE, editor. Nuclear medicine. Michigan: Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p. 1117.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Koizumi M, Wagatsuma K, Miyaji N, Murata T, Miwa K, Takiguchi T, et al. Evaluation of a computer-assisted diagnosis system, BONENAVI version 2, for bone scintigraphy in cancer patients in a routine clinical setting. Ann Nucl Med. 2015;29:138–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yoneyama S, Miyoshi Y, Takebayashi S, Noguchi K. Prognostic value of computer-aided diagnosis system for bone scans in hormone-naive prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:276–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tofe AJ, Francis MD, Harvey WJ. Correlation of neoplasms with incidence and localization of skeletal metastases: an analysis of 1355 diphosphonate bone scans. J Nucl Med. 1975;16:986–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Iwase T, Yamamoto N, Ichihara H, Togawa T, Nagashima T, Miyazaki M. The relationship between skeletal-related events and bone scan index for the treatment of bone metastasis with breast cancer patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2014;93:e269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Coakley FV, Jones AR, Finlay DB, Belton IP. The aetiology and distinguishing features of solitary spinal hot spots on planar bone scans. Clin Radiol. 1995;50:327–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Kazuhiro Suzuki, M.D, Ph.D. and Jun Horiguchi, M.D, Ph.D. for their valuable help in patient recruiting and management during this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tetsuya Higuchi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shintawati, R., Achmad, A., Higuchi, T. et al. Evaluation of bone scan index change over time on automated calculation in bone scintigraphy. Ann Nucl Med 29, 911–920 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-015-1021-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-015-1021-3

Keywords

Navigation