SNM Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     




J Nucl Med. 2008; 49 (Supplement 1):373P
This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bucerius, J.
Right arrow Articles by Ruhlmann, J.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bucerius, J.
Right arrow Articles by Ruhlmann, J.

Oncology-Clinical Diagnosis: Solid Tumors

Clinical Diagnosis-Solid Tumors Posters

Comparison of 18-F-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT and 99m-Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy for detection of osseous metastases in prostate cancer disease

Jan Bucerius1, Kristina Näke1, Birgit Hölters2, Hans-Jürgen Neissen2, Michael Dönnebrink2, Hans-Jürgen Biersack1 and Jürgen Ruhlmann2

1 Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany; 2 Medizin Center Bonn, Bonn, Germany

1577

Objectives: Aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of 18-F-fluoromethylcholine (FMCH) for detection of prostate cancer related bone metastases compared to 99m-Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy (MDP).

Methods: 12 patients (age: 62.6±20.1 years; PSA: 7.9±6.0 ng/ml) undergoing whole-body FMCH as well as MDP were evaluated. PET scans were started immediately after i.v.-inj. of 226.6±40.3 MBq FMCH. 2 min. after injection of the tracer acquisition of the data was performed. PET, CT, and PET/CT slices as well as corresponding MDP (724.5±16.0 MBq 99m-Tc MDP) images were generated for review and visual analysis of each dataset performed by two experienced physicians. Data of the four imaging modalities were categorized as normal, benign and malignant lesions.

Results: PET, CT, PET/CT, and MDP revealed no malignant lesions in 11 of the 12 included patients. In one patient, MDP and CT could show osseous metastases in the coccygeal and in the pubic bone. FMCH failed to confirm this diagnosis. In this patient external radiation therapy of both infiltrated bones had been performed the diagnosis with MDP and FMCH. Pretherapeutic FMCH correctly diagnosed both MDP-sensitive malignant lesions. 39 benign osseous lesions were diagnosed by MDP. None of them did show a significant FMCH uptake in the corresponding PET but 2 of them were confirmed by CT. CT revealed 8 benign osseous lesions without corresponding increased MDP uptake.

Conclusions: Our initial results in 12 patients showed promising results for evaluation of osseous infiltration of prostate cancer with FMCH. The false negative result of FMCH imaging in one patient is probably due to a loss of vitality of the osseous metastases after radiation therapy.





This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bucerius, J.
Right arrow Articles by Ruhlmann, J.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bucerius, J.
Right arrow Articles by Ruhlmann, J.