Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Maximum standardized uptake value from quantitative bone single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography in differentiating metastatic and degenerative joint disease of the spine in prostate cancer patients

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

Abstract

Objective

Qualitative interpretation in bone scan is often complicated by the presence of degenerative joint disease (DJD), especially in the elderly patient. The aim of this study is to compare objectively 99mTc-MDP tracer uptake between DJD and osseous metastases of the spine using semi-quantitative assessment with SPECT SUV.

Methods

Bone scan with SPECT/CT using 99mTc-MDP was performed in 34 patients diagnosed with prostate carcinoma. SPECT/CT was performed based on our institutional standard guidelines. SUVmax based on body weight in 238 normal vertebrae visualized on SPECT/CT was quantified as baseline. A total of 211 lesions in the spine were identified on bone scan. Lesions were characterized into DJD or bone metastases based on its morphology on low-dose CT. Semi-quantitative evaluation using SUVmax was then performed on 89 DJD and 122 metastatic bone lesions. As most of the bone lesions were small in volume, the effect of partial volume effect (PVE) on SUVmax was also assessed. The corrected SUVmax values were obtained based on the recovery coefficient (RC) method.

Results

The mean SUVmax for normal vertebrae was 7.08 ± 1.97, 12.59 ± 9.01 for DJD and 36.64 ± 24.84 for bone metastases. The SUVmax of bone metastases was significantly greater than DJD (p value < 0.05). To assess for diagnostic accuracy, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was performed. The area under the curve (AUC) was found to be fairly high at 0.874 (95% CI 0.826–0.921). The cutoff SUVmax value ≥ 20 gave a sensitivity of 73.8% and specificity of 85.4% in differentiating bone metastases from DJD. The corrected SUVmax for both DJD and bone metastases was smaller with a mean of 6.82 ± 6.02 and 24.77 ± 20.61, respectively. The cutoff SUVmax value was also lower with a value of 10, which gave a sensitivity of 73.8% and specificity of 86.5%.

Conclusion

SPECT SUVmax was significantly higher in bone metastases than DJD. Semi-quantitative assessment with SUVmax can complement qualitative analysis. A cutoff SUVmax of ≥ 20 can be used to differentiate bone metastases from DJD. Partial volume effect should be taken into consideration in the quantification of small lesion size.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McLoughlin LC, O’Kelly F, O’Brien C, Sheikh M, Feeney J, Torreggiani W, et al. The improved accuracy of planar bone scintigraphy by adding single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT-CT) to detect skeletal metastases from prostate cancer. Ir J Med Sci. 2016;185(1):101–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Macedo F, Ladeira K, Pinho F, Saraiva N, Bonito N, Pinto L, et al. Bone metastases: an overview. Oncol Rev. 2017;11(1):321.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Langsteger W, Rezaee A, Pirich C, Beheshti M. 18F-NaF-PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46(6):491–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Sullivan GJ, Carty FL, Cronin CG. Imaging of bone metastasis: an update. World J Radiol. 2015;7(8):202–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tombal B, Lecouvet F. Modern detection of prostate cancer’s bone metastasis: is the bone scan era over? Adv Urol. 2012;1:1. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/893193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Donohoe KJ, Cohen EJ, Giammarile F, Grady E, Greenspan BS, Henkin RE, et al. Appropriate use criteria for bone scintigraphy in prostate and breast cancer: summary and excerpts. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(4):14N–7N.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Muzahir S, Jeraj R, Liu G, Hall LT, Munoz A, Rio D, et al. Differentiation of metastatic vs degenerative joint disease using semi-quantitative analysis with 18 F-NaF PET/CT in castrate resistant prostate cancer patients. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;5(2):162–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Helyar V, Mohan HK, Barwick T, Livieratos L, Gnanasegaran G, Clarke SEM, et al. The added value of multislice SPECT/CT in patients with equivocal bony metastasis from carcinoma of the prostate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(4):706–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Love C, Din AS, Tomas MB, Kalapparambath TP, Palestro CJ. Radionuclide bone imaging: an illustrative review. Radio Graph. 2003;23(2):341–58.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Even-Sapir E. Malignant bone involvement. Cancer Imaging. 2005;46(8):1356–67.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kuwert T. Skeletal SPECT/CT: a review. Clin Transl Imaging. 2014;2(6):505–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rahman MH, Ali MY, Ahmed SAM. The role of SPECT-guided CT for evaluating foci of increased bone metabolism classified as indeterminate on SPECT in cancer patients. Faridpur Med Coll J. 2013;8(1):31–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Beck M, Sanders JC, Ritt P, Reinfelder J, Kuwert T. Longitudinal analysis of bone metabolism using SPECT/CT and 99mTc-diphosphono-propanedicarboxylic acid: comparison of visual and quantitative analysis. EJNMMI Res. 2016;6(1):60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Even-Sapir E, Martin RH, Barnes DC, Pringle CR, Iles SE, Mitchell MJ. Role of SPECT in differentiating malignant from benign lesions in the lower thoracic and lumbar vertebrae. Radiology. 1993;187(1):193–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cachovan M, Vija AH, Hornegger J, Kuwert T. Quantification of 99mTc-DPD concentration in the lumbar spine with SPECT/CT. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaneta T, Ogawa M, Daisaki H, Nawata S, Yoshida K, Inoue T. SUV measurement of normal vertebrae using SPECT/CT with Tc-99m methylene diphosphonate. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;6(5):262–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):310–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hayes AJ, Reynolds S, Nowell MA, Meakin LB, Habicher J, Ledin J, et al. Spinal deformity in aged zebrafish is accompanied by degenerative changes to their vertebrae that resemble osteoarthritis. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(9):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Maccauro G, Spinelli MS, Mauro S, Perisano C, Graci C, Rosa MA. Physiopathology of spine metastasis. Int J Surg Oncol. 2011;2011:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Florimonte L, Dellavedova L, Maffioli LS. Radium-223 dichloride in clinical practice: a review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(10):1896–909.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuji I, Yamane T, Seto A, Yasumizu Y, Shirotake S, Oyama M. Skeletal standardized uptake values obtained by quantitative SPECT/CT as an osteoblastic biomarker for the discrimination of active bone metastasis in prostate cancer. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2017;1(2):1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Win AZ, Aparici CM. Normal SUV values measured from NaF18-PET/CT bone scan studies. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(9):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zaw Win Aung, Aparici CM. Factors affecting uptake of NaF-18 by the normal skeleton. J Clin Med Res. 2014;6(6):435–42.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bailey D, Willowson KP. An evidence-based review of quantitative SPECT imaging and potential clinical applications personalised monte carlo dosimetry platfrom view project radiation biology in radionuclide therapy view project. Artic J Nucl Med. 2013;54:83–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Börm W, Gleixner M, Klasen J. Spinal tumors in coexisting degenerative spine disease—a differential diagnostic problem. Eur Spine J. 2004;13(7):633–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bettinardi V, Castiglioni I, De Bernardi E, Gilardi MC. PET quantification: strategies for partial volume correction. Clin Transl Imaging. 2014;2:199–21818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nyathi M, Sithole ME. Quantification of partial volume effects in single photon emission computed tomography. Int J Electr Comput Sci IJECS-IJENS. 2016;16(05):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the short-term research grant of the Universiti Sains Malaysia (304/PPSP/6315121). The study was approved by Human Research Ethics Committee USM (HREC), Universiti Sains Malaysia (Reference: USM/JEPeM/17050266).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Radiotherapy and Oncology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia

    Mohd Fazrin Mohd Rohani, Norazlina Mat Nawi, Syed Ejaz Shamim & Wan Fatihah Wan Sohaimi

  2. Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia

    Mohd Fazrin Mohd Rohani, Norazlina Mat Nawi, Syed Ejaz Shamim & Wan Fatihah Wan Sohaimi

  3. School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia

    Wan Mohd Nazlee Wan Zainon

  4. School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia

    Marianie Musarudin

  5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Institut Kanser Negara, Putrajaya, Malaysia

    Mohamad Aminudin Said

  6. Advanced Medical and Dental Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Bertam, Penang, Malaysia

    Mohd Fazrin Mohd Rohani & Hazlin Hashim

Authors
  1. Mohd Fazrin Mohd Rohani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Norazlina Mat Nawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Syed Ejaz Shamim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wan Fatihah Wan Sohaimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wan Mohd Nazlee Wan Zainon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marianie Musarudin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mohamad Aminudin Said
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hazlin Hashim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norazlina Mat Nawi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Mohd Rohani, M.F., Mat Nawi, N., Shamim, S.E. et al. Maximum standardized uptake value from quantitative bone single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography in differentiating metastatic and degenerative joint disease of the spine in prostate cancer patients. Ann Nucl Med 34, 39–48 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-019-01410-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-019-01410-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation