Accuracy of Whole-body HDP SPECT/CT, FDG PET/CT, and Their Combination for Detecting Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer: an Intra-personal Comparison

Overview

Journal Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging

Date 2018 Jul 26

PMID 30042868

Citations 12

Authors

Olivier Rager

Stephanie A Lee-Felker

Claire Tabouret-Viaud

Ely R Felker

Antoine Poncet

Gael Amzalag

Valentina Garibotto

Habib Zaidi

Martin A Walter

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

New generation SPECT/CT scanners allow rapid whole-body imaging, and potentially facilitate significantly improved diagnostic accuracy. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of whole-body Tc-99m-HDP SPECT/CT, F-18-FDG PET/CT, and their combination for detecting bone metastases in breast cancer. Women with biopsy-proven breast cancer that were referred for whole-body SPECT/CT and FDG PET/CT were consecutively included in this retrospective study. Two blinded readers independently interpreted all scans. In a per-patient analysis, the diagnostic performances of whole-body SPECT/CT, FDG PET/CT, and their combination were compared using (ROC) analysis. In a per-lesion analysis, the performances were compared using figures of merit (FoM) differences in ROC analysis, which considers the location information. Follow-up served as reference standard. Overall, 25 consecutive women (median age: 55; range 38-82) with 117 lesions were included. The median follow-up was 21 months (2-46 months). The per-patient analysis revealed no significant differences in diagnostic performance (P = 0.16), while the per-lesion analysis revealed a diagnostic superiority of whole-body SPECT/CT over FDG PET/CT (P = 0.004). Specifically, the PET/CT FoM was significantly lower than the SPECT/CT FoM (FoM difference = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.21; -0.02], P = 0.021). No significant difference was observed between SPECT/CT and the combination of SPECT/CT and PET/CT. The per-lesion analysis suggest that SPECT/CT has a higher diagnostic accuracy than FDG PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases. Thus, SPECT/CT may be a useful adjunct to FDG PET/CT for staging of breast cancer patients.

Citing Articles

Diagnostic performance of F‑FDG PET/CT vs. F‑NaF PET/CT in breast cancer with bone metastases: An indirect comparative meta‑analysis.

Hu H, Hu X, Liang Z, Yang W, Li S, Li D Oncol Lett. 2024; 28(5):546.

PMID: 39319212 PMC: 11420642. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2024.14679.

Whole-Body SPECT/CT: Protocol Variation and Technical Consideration-A Narrative Review.

Alqahtani M Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(16).

PMID: 39202315 PMC: 11353707. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14161827.

Diagnostic Accuracy of PET with Different Radiotracers versus Bone Scintigraphy for Detecting Bone Metastases of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis.

Zamanian M, Treglia G, Abedi I J Imaging. 2023; 9(12).

PMID: 38132692 PMC: 10744045. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging9120274.

Comparison of the diagnostic value of 18F-NaF PET/CT and Tc-MDP SPECT for bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Fan Z, Wang T, Zou L, Liu D Transl Cancer Res. 2023; 12(11):3166-3178.

PMID: 38130318 PMC: 10731341. DOI: 10.21037/tcr-23-817.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative SPECT-CT Diagnostic Accuracy in Bone Lesion Evaluation-A Review of the Literature.

Mutuleanu M, Paun D, Lazar A, Petroiu C, Trifanescu O, Anghel R Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(18).

PMID: 37761338 PMC: 10529093. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13182971.

References

Palmedo H, Marx C, Ebert A, Kreft B, Ko Y, Turler A . Whole-body SPECT/CT for bone scintigraphy: diagnostic value and effect on patient management in oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013; 41(1):59-67. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-013-2532-6. View

Chakraborty D . Maximum likelihood analysis of free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) data. Med Phys. 1989; 16(4):561-8. DOI: 10.1118/1.596358. View

Zhang Y, Shi H, Gu Y, Xiu Y, Li B, Zhu W . Differential diagnostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography/spiral computed tomography with Tc-99m-methylene diphosphonate in patients with spinal lesions. Nucl Med Commun. 2011; 32(12):1194-200. DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e32834bd82e. View

Bernsdorf M, Berthelsen A, Wielenga V, Kroman N, Teilum D, Binderup T . Preoperative PET/CT in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012; 23(9):2277-2282. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds002. View

Chakraborty D, Berbaum K . Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. Med Phys. 2004; 31(8):2313-30. DOI: 10.1118/1.1769352. View

Rager O, Nkoulou R, Exquis N, Garibotto V, Tabouret-Viaud C, Zaidi H . Whole-Body SPECT/CT versus Planar Bone Scan with Targeted SPECT/CT for Metastatic Workup. Biomed Res Int. 2017; 2017:7039406. PMC: 5546128. DOI: 10.1155/2017/7039406. View

Wei S, Li Y, Siegal G, Hameed O . Breast carcinomas with isolated bone metastases have different hormone receptor expression profiles than those with metastases to other sites or multiple organs. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2010; 15(2):79-83. PMC: 3169204. DOI: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2010.06.010. View

Romer W, Nomayr A, Uder M, Bautz W, Kuwert T . SPECT-guided CT for evaluating foci of increased bone metabolism classified as indeterminate on SPECT in cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2006; 47(7):1102-6. View

Utsunomiya D, Shiraishi S, Imuta M, Tomiguchi S, Kawanaka K, Morishita S . Added value of SPECT/CT fusion in assessing suspected bone metastasis: comparison with scintigraphy alone and nonfused scintigraphy and CT. Radiology. 2005; 238(1):264-71. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2373041358. View

10.

Uematsu T, Yuen S, Yukisawa S, Aramaki T, Morimoto N, Endo M . Comparison of FDG PET and SPECT for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184(4):1266-73. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841266. View

11.

Hahn S, Heusner T, Kummel S, Koninger A, Nagarajah J, Muller S . Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer. Acta Radiol. 2011; 52(9):1009-14. DOI: 10.1258/ar.2011.100507. View

12.

Gradishar W, Anderson B, Balassanian R, Blair S, Burstein H, Cyr A . Breast Cancer Version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015; 13(4):448-75. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0060. View

13.

Chakraborty D, Breatnach E, Yester M, Soto B, Barnes G, FRASER R . Digital and conventional chest imaging: a modified ROC study of observer performance using simulated nodules. Radiology. 1986; 158(1):35-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.158.1.3940394. View

14.

Miller H . The FROC curve: a representation of the observer's performance for the method of free response. J Acoust Soc Am. 1969; 46(6):1473-6. DOI: 10.1121/1.1911889. View

15.

. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals (addendum 2 to ICRP publication 53). Ann ICRP. 2000; 28(3):1-126. DOI: 10.1016/s0146-6453(99)00006-8. View

16.

Helyar V, Mohan H, Barwick T, Livieratos L, Gnanasegaran G, Clarke S . The added value of multislice SPECT/CT in patients with equivocal bony metastasis from carcinoma of the prostate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009; 37(4):706-13. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-009-1334-3. View

17.

Chakraborty D . New developments in observer performance methodology in medical imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2011; 41(6):401-18. PMC: 3196628. DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2011.07.001. View

18.

Cook G, Houston S, Rubens R, Maisey M, 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. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.10.3375. View

19.

. 5. Extensions to Conventional ROC Methodology: LROC, FROC, and AFROC. J ICRU. 2013; 8(1):31-5. DOI: 10.1093/jicru/ndn011. View

20.

Groheux D, Hindie E, Delord M, Giacchetti S, Hamy A, de Bazelaire C . Prognostic impact of (18)FDG-PET-CT findings in clinical stage III and IIB breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012; 104(24):1879-87. PMC: 3525816. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djs451. View