A meta-analysis of 18F-Fluoride positron emission tomography for assessment of metastatic bone tumor
- 530 Downloads
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.
Keywords18F-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.
- 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
- 7.ImPACT. CT patient dosimetry Excel spreadsheet (version 0.99v, 17 June 2004). http://www.impactscan.org/.
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 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