Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp 523–531 | Cite as

A meta-analysis of 18F-Fluoride positron emission tomography for assessment of metastatic bone tumor

  • Ukihide TateishiEmail author
  • Satoshi Morita
  • Masataka Taguri
  • Kazuya Shizukuishi
  • Ryogo Minamimoto
  • Masashi Kawaguchi
  • Takeshi Murano
  • Takashi Terauchi
  • Tomio Inoue
  • E. Edmund Kim
Original Article



The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of 18F-Fluoride positron emission tomography (PET) or positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) compared with bone scintigraphy (BS) planar or BS planar and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in evaluating patients with metastatic bone tumor.

Materials and methods

We performed a meta-analysis of all available studies addressing the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-Fluoride PET, 18F-Fluoride PET/CT, BS planar, and BS planar and SPECT for detecting the metastatic bone tumor. We determined sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios, and drew summary receiver operating characteristic curves using hierarchical regression models. We also compared the effective dose and cost-effectiveness estimated by data from the enrolled studies between 18F-Fluoride PET or PET/CT and BS planar or BS planar and SPECT.


When comparing all studies with data on 18F-Fluoride PET or PET/CT, sensitivity and specificity were 96.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 93.5–98.9%] and 98.5% (95% CI 97.0–100%), respectively, on a patient basis and 96.9% (95% CI 95.9–98.0%) and 98.0% (95% CI 97.1–98.9%), respectively, on a lesion basis. The Az values of 18F-Fluoride PET or PET/CT were 0.986 for the patient basis and 0.905 for the lesion basis, whereas those of BS or BS and SPECT were 0.866 for the patient basis and 0.854 for the lesion basis. However, the estimated effective dose and average cost-effective ratio were poorer for 18F-Fluoride PET or PET/CT than those of BS planar or BS planar and SPECT.


18F-Fluoride PET or PET/CT has excellent diagnostic performance for the detection of metastatic bone tumor, but the estimated effective dose and average cost-effective ratio are at a disadvantage compared with BS planar or BS planar and SPECT.


18F-Fluoride PET PET/CT 



The authors thank the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine for their vulnerable assistance of data interpretation and also thank Kengo Ito, MD, Kimiichi Uno, MD, and Seigo Kinuya, MD for their helpful suggestions. This study was supported in part by grants from Scientific Research Expenses for Health and Welfare Programs and the Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research from the Ministry of Health, Labour.


  1. 1.
    Ghanem N, Uhl M, Brink I, Schäfer O, Kelly T, Moser E, et al. Diagnostic value of MRI in comparison to scintigraphy, PET, MS-CT and PET/CT for the detection of metastases of bone. Eur J Radiol. 2005;55:41–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goudarzi B, Kishimoto R, Komatsu S, Ishikawa H, Yoshikawa K, Kandatsu S, et al. Detection of bone metastases using diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with 11C-methionine PET and bone scintigraphy. Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 (in press).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vallabhajosula S. (18)F-labeled positron emission tomographic radiopharmaceuticals in oncology: an overview of radiochemistry and mechanisms of tumor localization. Semin Nucl Med. 2007;37:400–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook GJ, Fogelman I. Detection of bone metastases in cancer patients by 18F-fluoride and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Q J Nucl Med. 2001;45:47–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grant FD, Fahey FH, Packard AB, Davis RT, Alavi A, Treves ST. Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: applying new technology to an old tracer. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:68–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Even-Sapir E, Mishani E, Flusser G, Metser U. 18F-Fluoride positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med. 2007;37:462–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ImPACT. CT patient dosimetry Excel spreadsheet (version 0.99v, 17 June 2004).
  8. 8.
    Murano T, Tateishi U, Iinuma T, Shimada N, Daisaki H, Terauchi T, et al. Evaluation of the risk of radiation exposure from new 18FDG PET/CT plans versus conventional x-ray plans in patients with pediatric cancers. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24(4):261–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones D, Shrimpton P. NRPB-SR250: normalised organ doses for X-ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques. National Radiological Protection Board. 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 60. Annals of the ICRP, vol 21, issue 1–3. Oxford: Elsevier; 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hetzel M, Arslandemir C, König HH, Buck AK, Nüssle K, Glatting G, et al. F-18 NaF PET for detection of bone metastases in lung cancer: accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and impact on patient management. J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18:2206–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoh CK, Hawkins RA, Dahlbom M, Glaspy JA, Seeger LL, Choi Y, et al. Whole body skeletal imaging with [18F]fluoride ion and PET. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1993;17:34–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoegerle S, Juengling F, Otte A, Altehoefer C, Moser EA, Nitzsche EU. Combined FDG and [F-18]fluoride whole-body PET: a feasible two-in-one approach to cancer imaging? Radiology. 1998;209:253–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schirrmeister H, Guhlmann A, Kotzerke J, Santjohanser C, Kühn T, Kreienberg R, et al. Early detection and accurate description of extent of metastatic bone disease in breast cancer with fluoride ion and positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2381–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schirrmeister H, Guhlmann A, Elsner K, Kotzerke J, Glatting G, Rentschler M, et al. Sensitivity in detecting osseous lesions depends on anatomic localization: planar bone scintigraphy versus 18F PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1623–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schirrmeister H, Glatting G, Hetzel J, Nüssle K, Arslandemir C, Buck AK, et al. Prospective evaluation of the clinical value of planar bone scans, SPECT, and (18)F-labeled NaF PET in newly diagnosed lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1800–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Flusser G, Kollender Y, Lerman H, Lievshitz G, et al. 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. 2004;45:272–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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;47:287–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beheshti M, Vali R, Waldenberger P, Fitz F, Nader M, Loidl W, et al. Detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer by 18F fluorocholine and 18F fluoride PET-CT: a comparative study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1766–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kawaguchi M, Tateishi U, Shizukuishi K, Suzuki A, Inoue T. F-18 fluoride uptake in bone metastasis: morphologic and metabolic analysis on integrated PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24(4):241–7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iagaru A, Mittra E, Yaghoubi SS, Dick DW, Quon A, Goris ML, et al. 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. 2009;50:501–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nemeth AJ, Henson JW, Mullins ME, Gonzalez RG, Shaefer PW. Improved detection of skull metastasis with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28:1088–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ukihide Tateishi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Satoshi Morita
    • 2
  • Masataka Taguri
    • 2
  • Kazuya Shizukuishi
    • 1
  • Ryogo Minamimoto
    • 1
  • Masashi Kawaguchi
    • 1
  • Takeshi Murano
    • 3
  • Takashi Terauchi
    • 3
  • Tomio Inoue
    • 1
  • E. Edmund Kim
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyYokohama City University Graduate School of MedicineYokohamaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics and EpidemiologyYokohama City University Graduate School of MedicineYokohamaJapan
  3. 3.Division of Cancer ScreeningResearch Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, National Cancer CenterTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Division of Diagnostic ImagingUniversity of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations