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


     




J Nucl Med. 2012; 53 (Supplement 1):586
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 Sampath, S.
Right arrow Articles by Iagaru, A.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Sampath, S.
Right arrow Articles by Iagaru, A.

General Clinical Specialties

Musculoskeletal: Bone Malignancy and More

Evaluation of NaF PET/CT, FDG PET/CT, combined NaF/FDG PET/CT and CT alone for detection of bone metastases

Srinath Sampath1, Srihari Sampath1, Amelie Lutz2, Juergen Willmann3, Erik Mittra1, Sanjiv Gambhir1 and Andrei Iagaru1

1 Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA 2 Radiology, MSK Imaging, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA 3 Radiology, Body Imaging, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA

Abstract No. 586

Objectives: FDG PET/CT is established in clinical practice for the initial cancer staging and the subsequent monitoring of response to therapy. NaF can be used as a PET/CT tracer for the detection of sclerotic skeletal metastases. The combined administration of NaF and FDG in a single PET/CT scan may improve patient convenience and reduce healthcare costs in selected patients. However, it has not been compared to CT alone for the detection of bone metastases.

Methods: This is a retrospective review of 51 patients with biopsy-proven cancer who underwent separate NaF PET/CT, FDG PET/CT and combined NaF/FDG PET/CT scans (3 scans per patient) at our institution. There were 39 men and 12 women, 19-84 year-old (average 53.9 ± 16.3). The 3 PET/CT scans were performed within a 2-week period for each patient. A direct comparison for detected bone metastases was performed between the 3 PET/CT scans and CT alone for each patient.

Results: The sensitivities, specificities, PPV and NPV for CT alone, 18F NaF PET/CT, 18F FDG PET/CT and combined 18F NaF/18F FDG PET/CT scans are presented in the attached table below. Overall, the combined scan performed better than any of the separate scans or the CT alone for identification of bone metastases.

Conclusions: We showed that combined NaF/FDG PET/CT detects more bone metastases than CT alone, and without loss of sensitivity in comparison to standard FDG PET/CT. The simultaneous use of NaF/FDG PET contributed greatly to the degree of concordance between scintigraphy and radiography, as the majority of CT-detected lesions missed on FDG PET were subsequently detected by NaF PET. These findings provide a strong clinical rationale for the use of combined NaF/FDG PET/CT in the management of selected oncologic patients, and should be further validated in larger cohorts


Figure 01
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
 




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 Sampath, S.
Right arrow Articles by Iagaru, A.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Sampath, S.
Right arrow Articles by Iagaru, A.