Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Relative roles of bone scintigraphy and positron emission tomography in assessing the treatment response of bone metastases

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Strader WJ, Lull RJ. Bone scanning. A very useful and commonly performed procedure in evaluation of patients with carcinoma. Southwest Med 1970;51(11):252–3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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(10):3375–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook GJ, Fogelman I. The role of nuclear medicine in monitoring treatment in skeletal malignancy. Semin Nucl Med 2001;31(3):206–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gillespie PJ, Alexander JL, Edelstyn GA. Changes in87 mSr concentrations in skeletal metastases in patients responding to cyclical combination chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1975;16(3):191–3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vogel CL, Schoenfelder J, Shemano I, Hayes DF, Gams RA. Worsening bone scan in the evaluation of antitumor response during hormonal therapy of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995;13(5):1123–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mortimer JE, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Trinkaus K, Katzenellenbogen JA, Welch MJ. Metabolic flare: indicator of hormone responsiveness in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19(11):2797–803

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stafford SE, Gralow JR, Schubert EK. Use of serial FDG PET to measure the response of bone-dominant breast cancer to therapy. Acad Radiol 2002;9(8):913–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Maffioli L, Florimonte L, Pagani L, Butti I, Roca I. Current role of bone scan with phosphonates in the follow-up of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 2004;31(Suppl 1):143–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Buscombe JR, Holloway B, Roche N, Bombardieri E. Position of nuclear medicine modalities in the diagnostic work-up of breast cancer. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;48(2):109–18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yang SN, Liang JA, Lin FJ, Kao CH, Lin CC, Lee CC. Comparing whole body18F-FDG positron emission tomography and Tc99m methylene diphosphonate bone scan to detect bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2002;128(6):325–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cheran SK, Herndon JE II, Patz EF Jr. 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 2004;44(3):317–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. R. García.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

García, J.R., Simó, M., Soler, M. et al. Relative roles of bone scintigraphy and positron emission tomography in assessing the treatment response of bone metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32, 1243–1244 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-005-1843-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-005-1843-7

Keywords

Navigation