Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET imaging for assessing bone metastases in breast cancer patients: a literature review

  • Mini - Review
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In patient with breast cancer (BC), 18F-FDG PET/CT is widely used for assessing skeletal metastatic involvement. Also 18F-NaF PET imaging is considered an accurate modality for detecting bone metastases. We aimed to review current literature on comparative performances of 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET imaging for assessing bone metastases from BC.

Methods

A literature search for PET studies published in PubMed/MEDLINE database in the last 10 years (September 2009–September 2019) using both 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF to detect bone involvement in BC patients was conducted, based on the combination of the terms (“PET” OR “positron emission tomography”) AND ((“FDG” OR “fluorodeoxyglucose” AND “fluoride” OR “NaF”)) AND “breast cancer”. Data on clinical and methodological aspects and diagnostic performances between the two tracers were collected and compared.

Results

Out of 43 studies initially retrieved, 12 studies (overall 340 patients) were finally considered, 3/12 performing a combined 18F-FDG/18F-NaF (“cocktail”) imaging. Heterogeneity in several aspects has been found among studies. However, 18F-NaF PET demonstrated overall higher sensitivity than 18F-FDG (ranging from 91.7 to 100% and from 41.6 to 75%, respectively), potentially impacting on patients’ management, but with lower specificity due to non-tumor-specific bone uptake (ranging from 46.3 to 76.2% and from 94.3 to 99%, respectively). 18F-FDG only is able to detect early metastases confined to bone marrow. Occurrence of “flare phenomenon” limits the use of 18F-NaF for assessing early treatment response. Cocktail imaging may allow the most comprehensive evaluation of bone involvement, moreover with dosimetry advantages over two single-tracer PET scans, but losing prognostic information carried by 18F-FDG.

Conclusion

Both 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG are suitable for assessing skeletal involvement in BC patients. However, inherent different uptake mechanism highlights differences in diagnostic performance between these tracers, reflecting specific bone metastases’ characteristics. Therefore, a complementary use of 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG PET imaging may be considered in clinically selected BC patients, such as those with suspicious bone involvement despite negative 18F-FDG PET imaging, with prevalent CT-sclerotic bone findings or with apparently confined or oligo-metastatic cancer to exclude widespread disease.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Piva R, Ticconi F, Ceriani V, Scalorbi F, Fiz F, Capitanio S, Bauckneht M, Cittadini G, Sambuceti G, Morbelli S (2017) Comparative diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for breast cancer recurrence. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 9:461–471

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Xiong Z, Deng G, Huang X, Li X, Xie X, Wang J, Shuang Z, Wang X (2018) Bone metastasis pattern in initial metastatic breast cancer: a population-based study. Cancer Manag Res 10:287–295

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook GJ, Azad GK, Goh V (2016) Imaging bone metastases in breast cancer: staging and response assessment. J Nucl Med 57:27S–33S

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jung SY, Rosenzweig M, Sereika S, Linkov F, Brufsky A, Weissfeld JL (2012) Factors associated with mortality after breast cancer metastasis. Cancer Causes Control 23:103–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Domchek SM, Younger J, Finkelstein DM, Seiden MV (2000) Predictors of skeletal complications in patients with metastatic breast carcinoma. Cancer 89:363–368

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ghanem N, Uhl M, Brink I, Schäfer O, Kelly T, Moser E, Langer M (2005) Diagnostic value of MRI in comparison to scintigraphy, PET, MS-CT and PET/CT for the detection of metastases of bone. Eur J Radiol 55:41–55

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Azad GK, Cook GJ (2016) Multi-technique imaging of bone metastases: spotlight on PET-CT. Clin Radiol 71:620–631

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pollen JJ, Witztum KF, Ashburn WL (1984) The flare phenomenon on radionuclide bone scan in metastatic prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 142:773–776

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chang HT, Hu C, Chiu YL, Peng NJ, Liu RS (2014) Role of 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the post-therapy surveillance of breast cancer. PLoS One 9(12):e115127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Radan L, Ben-Haim S, Bar-Shalom R, Guralnik L, Israel O (2006) The role of FDG-PET/CT in suspected recurrence of breast cancer. Cancer 107:2545–2551

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cochet A, Dygai-Cochet I, Riedinger JM, Humbert O, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Toubeau M, Guiu S, Coutant C, Coudert B, Fumoleau P, Brunotte F (2014) 18F-FDG PET/CT provides powerful prognostic stratification in the primary staging of large breast cancer when compared with conventional explorations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41(3):428–437

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ben-Haim S, Israel O (2009) Breast cancer: role of SPECT and PET in imaging bone metastases. Semin Nucl Med 39:408–415

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shie P, Cardarelli R, Brandon D, Erdman W, Abdulrahim N (2008) Meta-analysis: comparison of F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med 33:97–101

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rong J, Wang S, Ding Q, Yun M, Zheng Z, Ye S (2013) Comparison of 18 FDG PET-CT and bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer patients. A meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 22:86–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Harisankar CNB, Preethi R, John J (2015) Metabolic flare phenomenon on 18 fluoride-fluorodeoxy glucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography scans in a patient with bilateral breast cancer treated with second-line chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Indian J Nucl Med 30:145–147

    Google Scholar 

  16. Blau M, Nagler W, Bender MA (1962) Fluorine-18: a new isotope for bone scanning. J Nucl Med 3:332–334

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Grant FD, Fahey FH, Packard AB, Davis RT, Alavi A, Treves ST (2008) Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: applying new technology to an old tracer. J Nucl Med 49:68–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Langsteger W, Heinish M, Fogelman I (2006) The role of fluorodeoxyglucose, 18F-dihydroxyphenylalanine, 18F-choline, and 18F-fluoride in bone imaging with emphasis on prostate and breast. Semin Nucl Med 36:73–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schirrmeister H, Guhlmann A, Kotzerke J, Santjohanser C, Kühn T, Kreienberg R, Messer P, Nüssle K, Elsner K, Glatting G, Träger H, Neumaier B, Diederichs C, Reske SN (1999) Early detection and accurate description of extent of metastatic bone disease in breast cancer with fluoride ion and positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 17:2381–2389

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Withofs N, Grayet B, Tancredi T, Rorive A, Mella C, Giacomelli F, Mievis F, Aerts J, Waltregny D, Jerusalem G, Hustinx R (2011) 18F-fluoride PET/CT for assessing bone involvement in prostate and breast cancers. Nucl Med Commun 32:168–176

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Damle NA, Bal C, Bandopadhyaya GP, Kumar L, Kumar P, Malhotra A, Lata S (2013) The role of 18F-fluoride PET-CT in the detection of bone metastases in patients with breast, lung and prostate carcinoma: a comparison with FDG PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scan. Jpn J Radiol 31:262–269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yoon SH, Kim KS, Kang SY, Song HS, Jo KS, Choi BH, Lee SJ, Yoon JK, An YS (2013) Usefulness of (18)F-fluoride PET/CT in breast cancer patients with osteosclerotic bone metastases. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 47:27–35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brito AE, Santos A, Sasse AD, Cabello C, Oliveira P, Mosci C, Souza T, Amorim B, Lima M, Ramos CD, Etchebehere E (2017) 18F-Fluoride PET/CT tumor burden quantification predicts survival in breast cancer. Oncotarget 8:36001–36011

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Sarikaya I, Sharma P, Sarikaya A (2018) F-18 fluoride uptake in primary breast cancer. Ann Nucl Med 32:678–686

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kang JY, Lee WW, So Y, Lee BC, Kim SE (2010) Clinical usefulness of 18F-fluoride bone PET. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:55–61

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Iagaru A, Mittra E, Yaghoubi SS, Dick DW, Quon A, Goris ML, Gambhir SS (2009) Novel strategy for a cocktail 18F-fluoride and 18F-FDG PET/CT scan for evaluation of malignancy: results of the pilot-phase study. J Nucl Med 50:501–505

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Iagaru A, Mittra E, Dick DW, Gambhir SS (2012) Prospective evaluation of 99mTc MDP scintigraphy, 18F NaF PET/CT, and 18F FDG PET/CT for detection of skeletal metastases. Mol Imaging Biol 14:252–259

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sampath SC, Sampath SC, Mosci C, Lutz AM, Willmann JK, Mittra ES, Gambhir SS, Iagaru A (2015) Detection of osseous metastasis by 18F-NaF/18F-FDG PET/CT versus CT alone. Clin Nucl Med 40:e173–e177

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Minaminoto R, Mosci C, Jamali M, Barkhodari A, Habte F, Jackson T, Mittra E, Gambhir SS, Iagaru A (2015) Semiquantitative analysis of the biodistribution of the combined 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG administration for PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med 56:688–694

    Google Scholar 

  30. Harisankar CN, Agrawal K, Bhattacharya A, Mittal BR (2014) F-18 fluoro-deoxy-glucose and F-18 sodium fluoride cocktail PET/CT scan in patients with breast cancer having equivocal bone SPECT/CT. Indian J Nucl Med 29:81–86

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Minamimoto R, Loening A, Jamali M, Barkhodari A, Mosci C, Jackson T, Obara P, Taviani V, Gambhir SS, Vasanawala S, Iagaru A (2015) 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. J Nucl Med 56:1862–1868

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sonni I, Minamimoto R, Baratto L, Gambhir SS, Loening AM, Vasanawala SS, Iagaru A (2019) Simultaneous PET/MRI in the evaluation of breast and prostate cancer using combined Na[18F] F and [18F]FDG: a focus on skeletal lesions. Mol Imaging Biol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-019-01392-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lin FI, Rao JE, Mittra ES, Nallapareddy K, Chengapa A, Dick DW, Gambhir SS, Iagaru A (2012) Prospective comparison of combined 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET/CT vs. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for detection of malignancy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:262–270

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Iagaru A, Young P, Mittra E, Dick DW, Herfkens R, Gambhir SS (2013) Pilot prospective evaluation of 99mTc-MDP scintigraphy, 18F NaF PET/CT, 18F FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI for detection of skeletal metastases. Clin Nucl Med 38:e290–e296

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Iagaru A, Mittra E, Mosci C, Dick DW, Sathekge M, Prakash V, Iyer V, Lapa P, Isidoro J, de Lima JM, Gambhir SS (2013) Combined 18F-fluoride and 18F-FDG PET/CT scanning for evaluation of malignancy: results of an international multicenter trial. J Nucl Med 54:176–183

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Araz M, Aras G, Küçük ÖN (2015) The role of 18F-NaF PET/CT in metastatic bone disease. J Bone Oncol 4:92–97

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Piccardo A, Puntoni M, Morbelli S, Massollo M, Bongioanni F, Paparo F, Altrinetti V, Gonella R, Gennari A, Iacozzi M, Sambuceti G, DeCensi A (2015) 18F-FDG PET/CT is a prognostic biomarker in patients affected by bone metastases from breast cancer in comparison with 18F-NaF PET/CT. Nuklearmedizin 54:163–172

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Capitanio S, Bongioanni F, Piccardo A, Campus C, Gonella R, Tixi L, Naseri M, Pennone M, Altrinetti V, Buschiazzo A, Bossert I, Fiz F, Bruno A, DeCensi A, Sambuceti G, Morbelli S (2016) World J Radiol 8:200–209

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Roop MJ, Singh B, Singh H, Watts A, Kohli PS, Mittal BR, Singh G (2017) Incremental value of cocktail 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET/CT over 18F-FDG PET/CT alone for characterization of skeletal metastases in breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med 42:335–340

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Peterson LM, O’Sullivan J, Wu QV, Novakova-Jiresova A, Jenkins I, Lee JH, Shields A, Montgomery S, Linden HM, Gralow J, Gadi VK, Muzi M, Kinahan P, Mankoff D, Specht JM (2018) Prospective study of serial 18F-FDG PET and 18F-fluoride PET to predict time to skeletal-related events, time to progression, and survival in patients with bone-dominant metastatic breast cancer. J Nucl Med 59:1823–1830

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Azad GK, Cousin F, Siddique M, Taylor B, Goh V, Cook GJR (2019) Does measurement of first-order and heterogeneity parameters improve response assessment of bone metastases in breast cancer compared to SUVmax in [18F]fluoride and [18F]FDG PET? Mol Imaging Biol 21:781–789

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Azad GK, Taylor BP, Green A, Sandri I, Swampillai A, Harries M, Kristeleit H, Mansi J, Goh V, Cook GJR (2019) Prediction of therapy response in bone-predominant metastatic breast cancer: comparison of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose and [18F]-fluoride PET/CT with whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:821–830

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Beheshti M, Mottaghy FM, Paycha F, Behrendt FFF, Van den Wyngaert T, Fogelman I, Strobel K, Celli M, Fanti S, Giammarile F, Krause B, Langsteger W (2015) 18F-NaF PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for bone imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:1767–1777

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Segall G, Delbeke D, Stabin MG, Even-Sapir E, Fair J, Sajdak R, Smith GT, SNM (2010) SNM practice guideline for sodium 18F-fluoride PET/CT bone scans 1.0. J Nucl Med 51:1813–1820

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Basu S, Rao R (2010) Combined 18F-FDG and fluoride approach in PET/CT imaging: is there a clinical future? J Nucl Med 51:165 (author reply 166–167)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Hanna L, Duan F, Shields AF, Quinn B, Coleman RE (2014) Impact of (18)F-fluoride PET on intended management of patients with cancers other than prostate cancer: results from the national oncologic PET registry. J Nucl Med 55:1054–1061

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Hanna L, Duan F, Quinn B, Shields AF (2015) 18F-fluoride PET used for treatment monitoring of systemic cancer therapy: results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med 56:222–228

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mosavi F, Johansson S, Sandberg DT, Turesson I, Sörensen J, Ahlström H (2012) Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI compared with 18F-NaF PET/CT for detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 199:1114–1120

    Google Scholar 

  49. Eiber M, Holzapfel K, Ganter C, Epple K, Metz S, Geinitz H, Kübler H, Gaa J, Rummeny EJ, Beer AJ (2011) Whole-body MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for patients with recurring prostate cancer: technical feasibility and assessment of lesion conspicuity in DWI. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:1160–1170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Stecco A, Trisoglio A, Soligo E, Berardo S, Sukhovei L, Carriero A (2018) Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging in bone metastases: a narrative review. Diagnostics (Basel) 8:45. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics8030045

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Picchio M, Pampaloni MH (2017) Current status and future perspectives of PET/MRI hybrid Imaging. Clin Transl Imaging 5:79–81

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that they have no funding to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, UOC di Medicina Nucleare, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito, 1, 00168, Rome, Italy

    Silvia Taralli, Carmelo Caldarella, Margherita Lorusso, Valentina Scolozzi & Maria Lucia Calcagni

  2. Unità Operativa di Medicina Nucleare, Dipartimento interdisciplinare di Medicina, Università degli studi di Bari “Aldo Moro”-AOU Policlinico di Bari, Bari, Italy

    Corinna Altini & Giuseppe Rubini

  3. Istituto di Medicina Nucleare, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy

    Maria Lucia Calcagni

Authors
  1. Silvia Taralli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carmelo Caldarella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Margherita Lorusso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Valentina Scolozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Corinna Altini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giuseppe Rubini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maria Lucia Calcagni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ST and CC: conception and design of the article, literature search and analysis, and drafting of the article; ML and VS: literature search and analysis and manuscript writing; CA and GR: literature search and critical revision; MLC: conception of the article, manuscript writing, and critical revision. All the authors approved the final version of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmelo Caldarella.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taralli, S., Caldarella, C., Lorusso, M. et al. Comparison between 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET imaging for assessing bone metastases in breast cancer patients: a literature review. Clin Transl Imaging 8, 65–78 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-020-00363-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-020-00363-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation