Advertisement

FDG-PET and CT patterns of bone metastases and their relationship to previously administered anti-cancer therapy

  • Ora Israel
  • Anat Goldberg
  • Alicia Nachtigal
  • Daniela Militianu
  • Rachel Bar-Shalom
  • Zohar Keidar
  • Ignac Fogelman
Original article

Abstract

Purpose

To assess 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in bone metastases in patients with and without previous treatment, and compare positive positron emission tomography (PET) with osteolytic or osteoblastic changes on computed tomography (CT).

Methods

One hundred and thirty-one FDG-PET/CT studies were reviewed for bone metastases. A total of 294 lesions were found in 76 patients, 81 in untreated patients and 213 in previously treated patients. PET was assessed for abnormal FDG uptake localised by PET/CT to the skeleton. CT was evaluated for bone metastases and for blastic or lytic pattern. The relationship between the presence and pattern of bone metastases on PET and CT, and prior treatment was statistically analysed using the chi-square test.

Results

PET identified 174 (59%) metastases, while CT detected 280 (95%). FDG-avid metastases included 74/81 (91%) untreated and 100/213 (47%) treated lesions (p<0.001). On CT there were 76/81 (94%) untreated and 204/213 (96%) treated metastases (p NS). In untreated patients, 85% of lesions were seen on both PET and CT (26 blastic, 43 lytic). In treated patients, 53% of lesions were seen only on CT (95 blastic, 18 lytic). Of the osteoblastic metastases, 65/174 (37%) were PET positive and 98/120 (82%), PET negative (p<0.001).

Conclusion

The results of the present study indicate that when imaging bone metastases, prior treatment can alter the relationship between PET and CT findings. Most untreated bone metastases are PET positive and lytic on CT, while in previously treated patients most lesions are PET negative and blastic on CT. PET and CT therefore appear to be complementary in the assessment of bone metastases.

Keywords

Bone metastases FDG PET CT Treatment 

References

  1. 1.
    Lonneux M, Borbath II, Berliere M, Kirkove C, Pauwels S. The place of whole-body PET FDG for the diagnosis of distant recurrence of breast cancer. Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3:45–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ohta M, Tokuda Y, Suzuki Y, Kubota M, Makuuchi H, Tajima T, et al. Whole body PET for the evaluation of bony metastases in patients with breast cancer: comparison with 99Tcm-MDP bone scintigraphy. Nucl Med Comm 2001;22:875–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang SN, Liang JA, Lin FJ, Kao CH, Lin CC, Lee CC. Comparing whole body 18F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate bone scan to detect bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2002;128:325–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moon DH, Maddahi J, Silverman DH, Glaspy JA, Phelps ME, Hoh CK. Accuracy of whole-body fluorine-18-FDG PET for the detection of recurrent or metastatic breast carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1998;39:431–435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallowitsch HJ, Kresnik E, Gasser J, Kumnig G, Igerc I, Mikosch P, 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. Invest Radiol 2003;38:250–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fogelman I. Skeletal uptake of diphosphonate: a review. Eur J Nucl Med 1980;5:473–476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cook GJ, Fogelman I. The role of nuclear medicine in monitoring treatment in skeletal malignancy. Semin Nucl Med 2001;31:206–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Warburg O. The metabolism of tumors.New York: Smith; 1931; p 129–169Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook GJ, Houston S, Rubens R, Maisey MN, Fogelman I. Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:3375–3379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garcia JR, Simo M, Perez G, Soler M, Lopez S, Setoain X, et al. 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy and 18F-FDG positron emission tomography in lung and prostate cancer patients: different affinity between lytic and sclerotic bone metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morris MJ, Akhurst T, Osman I, Nunez R, Macapinlac H, Siedlecki K, et al. Fluorinated deoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in progressive metastatic prostate cancer. Urology 2002;59:913–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nakai T, Okuyama C, Kubota T, Yamada K, Ushijima Y, Taniike K, et al. Pitfalls of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:1253–1258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nakamoto Y, Cohade C, Tatsumi M, Hammoud D, Wahl RL. CT appearance of bone metastases detected with FDG PET as part of the same PET/CT examination. Radiology 2005;237:627–634PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, Lievshitz G, Lerman H, Leibovitch I. The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006;47:287–297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yeh SD, Imbriaco M, Larson SM, Garza D, Zhang JJ, Kalaigian H, et al. Detection of bony metastases of androgen-independent prostate cancer by PET-FDG. Nucl Med Biol 1996;23:693–697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shreve PD, Grossman HB, Gross MD, Wahl RL. Metastatic prostate cancer: initial findings of PET with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose. Radiology 1996;199:751–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moog F, Kotzerke J, Reske SN. FDG PET can replace bone scintigraphy in primary staging of malignant lymphoma. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1407–1413PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ora Israel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anat Goldberg
    • 1
  • Alicia Nachtigal
    • 3
  • Daniela Militianu
    • 3
  • Rachel Bar-Shalom
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zohar Keidar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ignac Fogelman
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineRambam Health Care CampusHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.B. Rappaport School of MedicineTechnion, Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic ImagingRambam Health Care CenterHaifaIsrael
  4. 4.Division of Imaging SciencesGuy’s, King’s and St Thomas’ School of MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations