European Radiology

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 939–949

Screening for bone metastases: whole-body MRI using a 32-channel system versus dual-modality PET-CT

  • Gerwin P. Schmidt
  • Stefan O. Schoenberg
  • Rupert Schmid
  • Robert Stahl
  • Reinhold Tiling
  • Christoph R. Becker
  • Maximilian F. Reiser
  • Andrea Baur-Melnyk
Musculoskeletal

Abstract

The diagnostic accuracy of screening for bone metastases was evaluated using whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) compared with combined fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) (FDG-PET-CT). In a prospective, blinded study, 30 consecutive patients (18 female, 12 male; 24–76 years) with different oncological diseases and suspected skeletal metastases underwent FDG-PET-CT as well as WB-MRI with the use of parallel imaging (PAT). With a 32-channel scanner, coronal imaging of the entire body and sagittal imaging of the complete spine was performed using T1-weighted and short tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequences in combination. PET-CT was conducted using a low-dose CT for attenuation correction, a PET-emission scan and diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT scan covering the thorax, abdomen and pelvis. Two radiologists read the MRI scans, another radiologist in combination with a nuclear medicine physician read the PET-CT scans, each in consensus. The standard of reference was constituted by radiological follow-up within at least 6 months. In 28 patients, 102 malignant and 25 benign bone lesions were detected and confirmed. WB-MRI showed a sensitivity of 94% (96/102), PET-CT exams achieved 78% (79/102; P<0.001). Specificities were 76% (19/25) for WB-MRI and 80% (20/25) for PET-CT (P>0.05). Diagnostic accuracy was 91% (115/127) and 78% (99/127; P<0.001), respectively. Cut-off size for the detection of malignant bone lesions was 2 mm for WB-MRI and 5 mm for PET-CT. WB-MRI revealed ten additional bone metastases due to the larger field of view. In conclusion, WB-MRI and FDG-PET-CT are robust imaging modalities for a systemic screening for metastatic bone disease. PAT allows WB-MRI bone marrow screening at high spatial resolution and with a diagnostic accuracy superior to PET-CT.

Keywords

Bone Metastases Magnetic resonance Computed tomography Positron emission tomography 

References

  1. 1.
    Rubens RD (1998) Bone metastases: the clinical problem. Eur J Cancer 34:210–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edelstyn GA, Gillespie PJ, Grebbel FS (1967) The radiological demonstration of osseous metastases: experimental observations. Clin Radiol 18:158–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eustace S, Tello R, DeCarvalho V et al (1997) A comparison of whole-body turbo STIR MR imaging and planar 99 m TC-methylene diphosphonate scintigraphy in the examination of patients with suspected skeletal metastases. Am J Roentgenol 169:1655–1661Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheran SK, Herndon JE, Patz EF (2003) Comparison of whole-body FDG-PET to bone scan for detection of bone metastases in patients with a new diagnosis of lung cancer. Lung cancer 44:317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Flusser G, Zuriel L, Kollender Y, Lerman H (2004) Assessment of malignant skeletal disease: initial experience with 18F-fluoride PET/CT and comparison between 18F-fluoride PET and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45:272–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pelosi E, Messa C, Sironi S, Picchio M, Landoni C, Bettinardi V et al (2004) Value of integrated PET/CT for lesion localisation in cancer patients: a comparative study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:932–939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vanel D, Dromain C, Tardivon A (2000) MRI of bone marrow disorders. Eur Radiol 10:224–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Imamura F, Kuriyama K, Seto T, Hasegawa Y, Nakayama T, Nakamura S et al (2000) Detection of bone marrow metastases of small cell lung cancer with magnetic resonance imaging: early diagnosis before destruction of osseous structure and implications for staging. Lung Cancer 27:189–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM et al (2001) Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. Am J Roentgenol 177:229–236Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steinborn M, Heuck AF, Tiling R, Bruegel M, Gauger L, Reiser MF (1999) Whole body bone marrow MRI in patients with metastatic disease to the skeletal system. J Comput Assist Tomogr 23:123–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iizuka-Mikami M, Nagai K, Yoshida K, Sugihara T, Suetsugu Y, Mikami M et al (2004) Detection of bone marrow and extramedullary involvement in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by whole-body MRI: comparison with bone and 67Ga scintigraphies. Eur Radiol 14:1074–1081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walker R, Kessar P, Blanchard R, Dimasi M, Harper K, DeCarvalho V et al (2000) Turbo STIR magnetic resonance imaging as a whole-body screening tool for metastases in patients with breast carcinoma: preliminary clinical experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 11:343–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mehta RC, Marks MP, Hinks RS, Glover GH, Enzmann DR (1995) MR evaluation of vertebral metatases: T1-weighted short inversion time inversion recovery, fast spin echo, and inversion-recovery fast spin-echo sequences. Am J Neuroradiol 16:281–288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kellenberger CJ, Miller SF, Khan M, Gilday DL, Weitzman S, Babyn PS et al (2004) Initial experience with FSE STIR whole-body MR imaging for staging lymphoma in children. Eur Radiol 14:1829–1841PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mahnken A, Wildberger JE, Adam G, Stanzel S, Schmitz-Rode T, Günther R et al (2005) Is there a need for contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI of the spine after inconspicuous short τ inversion recovery imaging? Eur Radiol 15:1387–1392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R et al (2000) A combined PET-CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 42:1369–1379Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roemer PB, Edelstein WA, Hayes CE, Souza SP, Mueller OM (1990) The nmr phased array. Magn Reson Med 16:192–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sodickson DK, Manning WJ (1997) Simultaneous acquisition of spatial harmonics (SMASH): fast imaging with radiofrequency coil arrays. Magn Reson Med 38:591–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Heidemann RM, Nittka M, Jellus V, Wang J et al (2002) Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA). Magn Reson Med 47:1202–1210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zech CJ, Hermann KA, Huber A, Dietrich O, Stremmer A, Herzog P et al (2004) High resolution MR imaging of the liver with T2-weighted sequences using integrated parallel imaging: comparison of prospective motion correction and respiratory triggering. J Magn Reson Imaging 20:443–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G, Ziegler SI, Muenzing W, Mueller SP et al (2005) Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body dual-modality 18F-FDG-PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med 46:608–613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vanel D, Bittoun J, Tardivon A (1998) A MRI of bone metastases. Eur Radiol 8:1345–1351Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schweitzer ME, Levine C, Mitchell DG, Gannon FH, Gomelia LG (1993) Bull’s eyes and halos: useful MR discriminators of osseous metastases. Radiology 188:249–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beggs AD, Hain SF, Curran KM, O’Doherty MJ (2002) FDG-PET as a “metabolic biopsy” tool in non-lung lesions with indeterminate biopsy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29:542–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Groves AM, Beadsmoore CJ, Cheow HK, Kottekkattu KB, Courtney HM, Kaptoge S et al (2006) Can 16-detector multislice CT exclude skeletal lesions during tumour staging? Implications for the cancer patient. Eur Radiol 10:1–8Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Layer G, Steudel A, Schueller H et al (1999) MRI to detect bone marrow metastases in the initial staging of small cell lung carcinoma and breast carcinoma. Cancer 85:1004–1009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ohta M, Tokuda Y, Suzuki Y et al (2001) Whole body PET fort the evaluation of bony metastases in patients with breast cance: comparison with 99 Tcm-MDP bone scintigraphy. Nucl Med Commun 22:875–879PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moon DH, Maddahi J, Silverman DH et al (1998) Accuracy of whole-body fluorine-18-FDG PET for the detection of recurrent or metastatic breast carcinoma. J Nucl Med 39:431–435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marom EM, Mc Addams HP, Erasmus JJ et al (1999) Staging non-small cell lung cancer with whole-body PET. Radiology 212:803–809PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Metser U, Lerman H, Blank A, Lievshitz G, Bokstein F, Even-Sapir E (2003) Malignant involvement of the spine: assessment by 18FDG-PET-CT. J Nucl Med 45:297–384Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres WG, Buck A, von Schultheiss GK (2002) PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology 225:575–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosenbaum SJ, Lind T, Antoch G, Bockisch A (2005) False-positive FDG-PET uptake—the role of PET/CT. Eur Radiol 17:1–12Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, Nazaradeh F, Goehde SC, Barkhausen J et al (2003) Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA 290:3199–3206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gallowitsch HJ, Kresnik E, Gasser J et al (2003) F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography ion the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma: a comparison to conventional imaging. Invest Radiol 38:250–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cook GJ, Houston S, Rubens R, Maisey MN, Fogelman I (1998) Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG-PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. J Clin Oncol 16:3375–3379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Krishnamurthy GT, Tubis M, Hiss J, Blahd WH (1977) Distribution pattern of metastatic bone disease. JAMA 237:837–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Perrin-Resche I, Bizais Y, Buhe T, Fiche M (1993) How iliac crest bone marrow biopsy compare with imaging in the detection of bone metastases in small cell lung cancer? Eur J Nucl Med 20:420–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Haubold-Reuter BG, Duewell S, Schilcher BR, Marincek B, v Schulthess GK (1993) The value of bone scintigraphy, bone marrow scintigraphy and fast spin-echo magnetic resonance imaging in staging of patients with malignant solid tumors: a prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med 20:1063–1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerwin P. Schmidt
    • 1
  • Stefan O. Schoenberg
    • 1
  • Rupert Schmid
    • 2
  • Robert Stahl
    • 1
  • Reinhold Tiling
    • 2
  • Christoph R. Becker
    • 1
  • Maximilian F. Reiser
    • 1
  • Andrea Baur-Melnyk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical RadiologyUniversity Hospitals Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University MunichMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospitals Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University MunichMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations