Diagnostic efficacy of PET/CT in bone tumors

Han,Songhui; Li,Yanzhou; Li,Yuejing; Zhao,Min

doi:10.3892/ol.2019.10101

Diagnostic efficacy of PET/CT in bone tumors

Authors:
- Songhui Han
- Yanzhou Li
- Yuejing Li
- Min Zhao
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Intervention, Henan Province Luoyang Orthopedic Traumatological Hospital (Henan Provincal Orthopedic Hospital), Luoyang, Henan 471002, P.R. China
Published online on: March 4, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2019.10101
Pages: 4271-4276

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Clinical value of PET/CT (positron emission tomography/computed tomography) in the diagnosis of malignant bone tumors (BT) was investigated. Fifty-four patients with BT were first diagnosed by ordinary CT and then by PET/CT. The diagnostic efficacy outcomes and diagnosis of malignant BT by clinical stage of the two methods for BT were observed and recorded, and the diagnostic value of PET/CT in the diagnosis of BT was evaluated. There were 14 cases of benign BT patients, 15 cases of stage I, 10 cases of stage II and 15 cases of stage III in malignant BT patients. The diagnostic coincidence rate of PET/CT was 92.59% and the diagnostic coincidence rate of CT was 72.22%, which showed that the diagnostic coincidence rate of PET/CT was significantly higher than that of CT (P<0.05). The sensitivity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value of PET/CT were 95.00, 85.71 and 95.00%, respectively, which were higher than those of CT (P<0.05). CT and PET/CT were used for the clinical staging and pathological diagnosis of malignant BT; the results showed that the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT in the clinical stages of malignant BT was also significantly higher than that of CT (P<0.05). The diagnostic efficacy of PET/CT in BT is better than that in CT. PET/CT can diagnose the pathological properties of BT more accurately, and can also effectively diagnose the clinical stage of malignant BT and provide clinical diagnostic basis for follow-up procedures.

View Figures

View References

1	Ringe KI, Panzica M and von Falck C: Thermoablation of bone tumors. Rofo. 188:539–550. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Goldsby R, Burke C, Nagarajan R, Zhou T, Chen Z, Marina N, Friedman D, Neglia J, Chuba P and Bhatia S: Second solid malignancies among children, adolescents, and young adults diagnosed with malignant bone tumors after 1976: Follow-up of a Children's Oncology Group cohort. Cancer. 113:2597–2604. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Calais J, Fendler WP, Herrmann K, Eiber M and Ceci F: Reply: Comparison of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 and ¹⁸F-fluciclovine PET/CT in a case series of 10 patients with prostate cancer recurrence: prospective trial is on its way. J Nucl Med. 59:8612018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Paskeviciute B, Bölling T, Brinkmann M, Rudykina G, Ernst I, Stegger L, Schober O, Willich N, Weckesser M and Könemann S: Impact of ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT on staging and irradiation of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Strahlenther Onkol. 185:260–265. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Bundschuh RA, Dinges J, Neumann L, Seyfried M, Zsótér N, Papp L, Rosenberg R, Becker K, Astner ST, Henninger M, et al: Textural parameters of tumor heterogeneity in ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT for therapy response assessment and prognosis in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 55:891–897. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M, Bomanji J, Ceci F, Cho S, Giesel F, Haberkorn U, Hope TA, Kopka K, et al: ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET/CT: Joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 44:1014–1024. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Jo HJ, Kim SJ, Kim IJ and Kim S: Predictive value of volumetric parameters measured by F-18 FDG PET/CT for lymph node status in patients with surgically resected rectal cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 28:196–202. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Thorek DL, Ulmert D, Diop NF, Lupu ME, Doran MG, Huang R, Abou DS, Larson SM and Grimm J: Non-invasive mapping of deep-tissue lymph nodes in live animals using a multimodal PET/MRI nanoparticle. Nat Commun. 5:30972014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Hameed M and Dorfman H: Primary malignant bone tumors - recent developments. Semin Diagn Pathol. 28:86–101. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Azcona C, Burghard E, Ruza E, Gimeno J and Sierrasesúmaga L: Reduced bone mineralization in adolescent survivors of malignant bone tumors: Comparison of quantitative ultrasound and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 25:297–302. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Knoeller SM, Uhl M, Gahr N, Adler CP and Herget GW: Differential diagnosis of primary malignant bone tumors in the spine and sacrum. The radiological and clinical spectrum: Minireview. Neoplasma. 55:16–22. 2008.PubMed/NCBI
12	Westhovens R and Dequeker J: Musculoskeletal manifestations of benign and malignant tumors of bone. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 15:70–75. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Maury CPJ: Amyloid and the origin of life: Self-replicating catalytic amyloids as prebiotic informational and protometabolic entities. Cell Mol Life Sci. 75:1499–1507. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Ulaner GA, Castillo R, Wills J, Gönen M and Goldman DA: ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT for systemic staging of patients with newly diagnosed ER-positive and HER2-positive breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 44:1420–1427. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Janssen JC, Meißner S, Woythal N, Prasad V, Brenner W, Diederichs G, Hamm B and Makowski MR: Comparison of hybrid ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and ^99mTc-DPD-SPECT/CT for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer patients: Additional value of morphologic information from low dose CT. Eur Radiol. 28:610–619. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	London K, Stege C, Cross S, Onikul E, Graf N, Kaspers G, Dalla-Pozza L and Howman-Giles R: ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT compared to conventional imaging modalities in pediatric primary bone tumors. Pediatr Radiol. 42:418–430. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Costelloe CM, Chuang HH, Chasen BA, Pan T, Fox PS, Bassett RL and Madewell JE: Bone windows for distinguishing malignant from benign primary bone tumors on FDG PET/CT. J Cancer. 4:524–530. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Guimaraes JB, Facchetti L, Rigo L, Garcia DL, Gama P, Franc BL and Nardo L: The role of PET/CT in the assessment of primary bone tumors. Curr Radiol Rep. 4:532016. View Article : Google Scholar
19	Kitajima K, Fukushima K, Yamamoto S, Kato T, Odawara S, Takaki H, Fujiwara M, Yamakado K, Nakanishi Y, Kanematsu A, et al: Diagnostic performance of ¹¹C-choline PET/CT and bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer. Nagoya J Med Sci. 79:387–399. 2017.PubMed/NCBI
20	El-Galaly TC, Gormsen LC and Hutchings M: PET/CT for staging; Past, present, and future. Semin Nucl Med. 48:4–16. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Partovi S, Kohan A, Rubbert C, Vercher-Conejero JL, Gaeta C, Yuh R, Zipp L, Herrmann KA, Robbin MR, Lee Z, et al: Clinical oncologic applications of PET/MRI: A new horizon. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 4:202–212. 2014.PubMed/NCBI
22	Al-Bulushi NK and Abouzied ME: Comparison of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT scan and ^99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy in detecting bone metastasis in head and neck tumors. Nucl Med Commun. 37:583–588. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI