European Journal of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 118–122 | Cite as

A comparison between the diagnostic efficacy of 99mTc-MDP, 99mTc-DPD and 99mTc-HDP for the detection of bone metastases

  • E. K. J. Pauwels
  • J. Blom
  • J. A. J. Camps
  • J. Hermans
  • A. M. Rijke
Article

Abstract

We have investigated the clinical efficacy for the detection of bone metastases of two recently marketed bone-seeking radiopharmaceuticals, HDP and DPD, compared with traditionally used MDP. Twenty patients received 15 mCi 99mTc-MDP; after assessment ten of these patients later received 15 mCi 99mTc-DPD and ten other patients of this group were injected with 15 mCi 99mTc-HDP. Scintigraphy took place 3 h after tracer injection. Quantitative analysis included the calculation of normal bone to soft tissue ratios, lesion to soft tissue ratios and lesion to normal bone ratios for all three radiopharmaceuticals. Visual inspection of the scintiphotos revealed the same number of bone lesions at the same localisations.

Statistical evaluation of our quantitative data showed that the lesion to normal bone ratio was significantly higher for MDP than for DPD. No further significant differences in the uptake in normal bone or in the metastatic lesions were found between all three radiopharmaceuticals.

It is concluded that the new bone-seeking agents DPD and HDP do not possess clinical advantages over MDP for the detection of skeletal metastases.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold JS, Barnes WE, Khedar N, Milo T (1979) Kinetic studies of a new and superior Tc-99m diphosphonate bone imaging agent. JNM 20:653–654 (abstr.)Google Scholar
  2. Bevan JA, Tofe AJ, Francis MD, Barnet BL, Benedict JJ (1979) Tc-99m-hydroxymethylenediphosphonate (HMDP) A new skeletal imaging agent. In: Proceedings 2nd International Symposium on Radiopharmaceuticals, Seattle, Society of Nuclear Medicine (ed), New York, pp 645–654Google Scholar
  3. Bevan JA, Tofe AJ, Benedict JJ, Francis MD, Barnett BL (1980) Tc-99m HMDP (hydroxymethylene diphosphonate): A radiopharmaceutical for skeletal and acute myocardial infarct imaging. II. Comparison of Tc-99m hydroxymethylene diphosphonate (HMDP) with other technetium-labeled bone imaging agents in a canine model. J Nucl Med 21:967–970Google Scholar
  4. Buell U, Pfeifer JP, Niendorf HP, Tongendorff J (1977) A computer assisted comparison of 99Tcm-methylene-diphosphonate and 99Tcm-pyrophosphate bone imaging. Br J Radiol 50:629–636Google Scholar
  5. Buell U, Kleinhans E, Zorn-Bopp E, Reuschel W, Muenzing W, Moser EA, Seiderer M (1982) A comparison of bone imaging with Tc-99m DPD and Tc-99m MDP: Concise Communication. J Nucl Med 23:214–217Google Scholar
  6. Fogelman I, Goll C, McKillop JH, Citrin DL, Greig WR (1978) A clinical comparison of 2 h and 4 h bone scans obtained with 99mTc-HEDP. Eur J Nucl Med 3:15–18Google Scholar
  7. Fogelman I, Citrin DL, McKillop JH, Turner JG, Bessent RG, Greig WR (1979) A clinical comparison of Tc-99m HEDP and Tc-99m MDP in the detection of bone metastases: Concise Communication. J Nucl Med 20:98–101Google Scholar
  8. Francis MD, Ferguson DL, Tofe AJ (1979) Comparative evaluation of three diphosphonates: in vitro adsorption (C-14 labeled) and in vivo osteogenic uptake (Tc-99m complexed). J Nucl Med 20:655 (abstr.)Google Scholar
  9. Khedar N, Arnold JS, Milo T, Barnes WE, Gergans G (1979) Qualitative and quantitative digital comparison of Tc-99m HMDP and MDP. J Nucl Med 20:655 (abstr.)Google Scholar
  10. Rosenthall L, Arzoumanian A, Lisbona R, Itoh K (1977) A longitudinal comparison of the kinetics of 99mTc-MDP and 99mTc-EHDP in humans. Clin Nucl Med 2:232–234Google Scholar
  11. Rosenthall L, Arzoumanian A, Damtew B, Tremblay J (1981) A cross-over study comparing Tc-99m-labeled HMDP and MDP in patients. Clin Nucl Med 6:353–355Google Scholar
  12. Silberstein EB (1980) A radiopharmaceutical and clinical comparison of 99mTc-Sn-hydroxymethylene diphosphonate with 99mTc-Sn-hydroxy-ethylidene diphosphonate. Radiology 136:747–751Google Scholar
  13. Subramanian G, McAfee JG (1971) A new complex of 99mTc for skeletal imaging. Radiology 99:192–196Google Scholar
  14. Subramanian G, McAfee JG, Blair RJ, Kallfelz FA, Thomas FD (1975) Technetium-99m-methylene diphosphonate — a superior agent for skeletal imaging: comparison with other technetium complexes. J Nucl Med 16:744–755Google Scholar
  15. Yano Y, McRae J, Van Dyke C, Anger HO (1973) Technetium-99m-labeled stannous ethane-1-hydroxy-1,1-diphosphonate: A new bone scanning agent. J Nucl Med 14:73–78Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. K. J. Pauwels
    • 1
  • J. Blom
    • 1
  • J. A. J. Camps
    • 1
  • J. Hermans
    • 2
  • A. M. Rijke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Radiology (Division of Nuclear Medicine)University HospitalLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medical StatisticsUniversity HospitalLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations