Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2/2012

01-02-2012 | Original Article

Prospective comparison of combined 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET/CT vs. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for detection of malignancy

Authors: Frank I. Lin, Jyotsna E. Rao, Erik S. Mittra, Kavitha Nallapareddy, Alka Chengapa, David W. Dick, Sanjiv Sam Gambhir, Andrei Iagaru

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 2/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Typically, 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT scans are done as two separate studies on different days to allow sufficient time for the radiopharmaceutical from the first study to decay. This is inconvenient for the patients and exposes them to two doses of radiation from the CT component of the examinations. In the current study, we compared the clinical usefulness of a combined 18F-FDG/18F-NaF PET/CT scan with that of a separate 18F-FDG-only PET/CT scan.

Methods

There were 62 patients enrolled in this prospective trial. All had both an 18F-FDG-alone PET/CT scan and a combined 18F-FDG/18F-NaF PET/CT scan. Of the 62 patients, 53 (85%) received simultaneous tracer injections, while 9 (15%) received 18F-NaF subsequent to the initial 18F-FDG dose (average delay 2.2 h). Images were independently reviewed for PET findings by two Board-Certified nuclear medicine physicians, with discrepancies resolved by a third reader. Interpreters were instructed to only report findings that were concerning for malignancy. Reading the 18F-FDG-only scan first for half of the patients controlled for order bias.

Results

In 15 of the 62 patients (24%) neither the 18F-FDG-only PET/CT scan nor the combined 18F-FDG/18F-NaF PET/CT scan identified malignancy. In the remaining 47 patients who had PET findings of malignancy, a greater number of lesions were detected in 16 of 47 patients (34%) using the combined 18F-FDG/18F-NaF PET/CT scan compared to the 18F-FDG-only PET/CT scan. In 2 of these 47 patients (4%), the 18F-FDG-only scan demonstrated soft tissue lesions that were not prospectively identified on the combined study. In 29 of these 47 patients (62%), the combined scan detected an equal number of lesions compared to the 18F-FDG-only scan. Overall, 60 of all the 62 patients (97%) showed an equal or greater number of lesions on the combined scan than on the 18F-FDG-only scan.

Conclusion

The current study demonstrated that 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF can be combined in a single PET/CT scan by administering the two radiopharmaceuticals simultaneously or in sequence on the same day. In addition to patient convenience and reduced radiation exposure from the CT component, the combined 18F-FDG/18F-NaF PET/CT scan appeared to increase the sensitivity for detection of osseous lesions compared to the 18F-FDG-only PET/CT scan in the studied population.
Literature
1.
Huyge V, Garcia C, Vanderstappen A, Alexiou J, Gil T, Flamen P. Progressive osteoblastic bone metastases in breast cancer negative on FDG-PET. Clin Nucl Med. 2009;34(7):417–20.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Nakai T, Okuyama C, Kubota T, Yamada K, Ushijima Y, Taniike K, et al. Pitfalls of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32(11):1253–8.PubMedCrossRef
3.
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
4.
Chua S, Gnanasegaran G, Cook G. Miscellaneous cancers (lung, thyroid, renal cancer, myeloma, and neuroendocrine tumors): role of SPECT and PET in imaging bone metastases. Semin Nucl Med. 2009;39(6):416–30.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Schirrmeister H, Glatting G, Hetzel J, Nüssle K, Arslandemir C, Buck AK, et al. Prospective evaluation of the clinical value of planar bone scans, SPECT, and (18)F-labeled NaF PET in newly diagnosed lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(12):1800–4.PubMed
6.
Savelli G, Maffioli L, Maccauro M, De Deckere E, Bombardieri E. Bone scintigraphy and the added value of SPECT (single photon emission tomography) in detecting skeletal lesions. Q J Nucl Med. 2001;45(1):27–37.PubMed
7.
Bybel B, Brunken R, DiFilippo F, Neumann D, Wu G, Cerqueira M. SPECT/CT imaging: clinical utility of an emerging technology. Radiographics. 2008;28(4):1097–113.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Eftekhari F. Imaging assessment of osteosarcoma in childhood and adolescence: diagnosis, staging, and evaluating response to chemotherapy. Cancer Treat Res. 2009;152:33–62.PubMedCrossRef
9.
James SL, Panicek DM, Davies AM. Bone marrow oedema associated with benign and malignant bone tumours. Eur J Radiol. 2008;67(1):11–21.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Schmidt G, Reiser M, Baur-Melnyk A. Whole-body MRI for the staging and follow-up of patients with metastasis. Eur J Radiol. 2009;70(3):393–400.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Bäuerle T, Semmler W. Imaging response to systemic therapy for bone metastases. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(10):2495–507.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Blau M, Nagler W, Bender MA. Fluorine-18: a new isotope for bone scanning. J Nucl Med. 1962;3:332–4.PubMed
13.
Dasgeb B, Mulligan M, Kim C. The current status of bone scintigraphy in malignant diseases. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2007;11(4):301–11.PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
16.
Fogelman I, Cook G, Israel O, Van der Wall H. Positron emission tomography and bone metastases. Breast Dis. 2005;35(2):135–42.
17.
Hetzel M, Arslandemir C, König HH, Buck AK, Nüssle K, Glatting G, et al. F-18 NaF PET for detection of bone metastases in lung cancer: accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and impact on patient management. J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18(12):2206–14.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Petrén-Mallmin M, Andréasson I, Ljunggren O, Ahlström H, Bergh J, Antoni G, et al. Skeletal metastases from breast cancer: uptake of 18F-fluoride measured with positron emission tomography in correlation with CT. Skeletal Radiol. 1998;27(2):72–6.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Schirrmeister H, Guhlmann A, Elsner K, Kotzerke J, Glatting G, Rentschler M, et al. Sensitivity in detecting osseous lesions depends on anatomic localization: planar bone scintigraphy versus 18F PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40(10):1623–9.PubMed
20.
Iagaru A, Mittra E, Yaghoubi S, Dick DW, Quon A, Goris ML, et al. Novel strategy for a cocktail 18F-fluoride and 18F-FDG PET/CT scan for evaluation of malignancy: results of the pilot-phase study. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(4):501–5.PubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
Christensen JA, Nathan MA, Mullan BP, Hartman TE, Swensen SJ, Lowe VJ. Characterization of the solitary pulmonary nodule: 18F-FDG PET versus nodule-enhancement CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(5):1361–7.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(5):571–8.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Gallowitsch H-J, Kresnik E, Gasser J, Kumnig G, Igerc I, Mikosch P, et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography in the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma: a comparison to conventional imaging. Invest Radiol. 2003;38(5):250–6.PubMed
25.
Moon DH, Maddahi J, Silverman DH, Glaspy JA, Phelps ME, Hoh CK. Accuracy of whole-body fluorine-18-FDG PET for the detection of recurrent or metastatic breast carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 1998;39(3):431–5.PubMed
26.
Grant F, Fahey F, Packard A, Davis R, Alavi A, Treves T. Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: applying new technology to an old tracer. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(1):68–78.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Hoegerle S, Juengling F, Otte A, Altehoefer C, Moser EA, Nitzsche EU. Combined FDG and [F-18]fluoride whole-body PET: a feasible two-in-one approach to cancer imaging? Radiology. 1998;209(1):253–8.PubMed
28.
Messiou C, Cook G, deSouza NM. Imaging metastatic bone disease from carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(8):1225–32.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Takenaka D, Ohno Y, Matsumoto K, Aoyama N, Onishi Y, Koyama H, et al. Detection of bone metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients: comparison of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), whole-body MR imaging without and with DWI, whole-body FDG-PET/CT, and bone scintigraphy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30(2):298–308.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Kwee T, Takahara T, Ochiai R, Koh DM, Ohno Y, Nakanishi K, et al. Complementary roles of whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI and 18F-FDG PET: the state of the art and potential applications. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(10):1549–58.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Nakanishi K, Kobayashi M, Nakaguchi K, Kyakuno M, Hashimoto N, Onishi H, et al. Whole-body MRI for detecting metastatic bone tumor: diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted images. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2007;6(3):147–55.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Taira A, Herfkens R, Gambhir S, Quon A. Detection of bone metastases: assessment of integrated FDG PET/CT imaging. Radiology. 2007;243(1):204–11.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Blomqvist C, Elomaa I, Virkkunen P, Porkka L, Karonen SL, Risteli L, et al. The response evaluation of bone metastases in mammary carcinoma. The value of radiology, scintigraphy, and biochemical markers of bone metabolism. Cancer. 1987;60(12):2907–12.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Hird A, Chow E, Zhang L, Wong R, Wu J, Sinclair E, et al. Determining the incidence of pain flare following palliative radiotherapy for symptomatic bone metastases: results from three Canadian cancer centers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75(1):193–7.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Segall G, Delbeke D, Stabin M, Even-Sapir E, Fair J, Sajdak R, et al. SNM practice guideline for sodium 18F-fluoride PET/CT bone scans 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(11):1813–20.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Krüger S, Buck A, Mottaghy F, Hasenkamp E, Pauls S, Schumann C, et al. Detection of bone metastases in patients with lung cancer: 99mTc-MDP planar bone scintigraphy, 18F-fluoride PET or 18F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(11):1807–12.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Prospective comparison of combined 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET/CT vs. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for detection of malignancy
Authors
Frank I. Lin
Jyotsna E. Rao
Erik S. Mittra
Kavitha Nallapareddy
Alka Chengapa
David W. Dick
Sanjiv Sam Gambhir
Andrei Iagaru
Publication date
01-02-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1971-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2/2012 Go to the issue

Original Article

Brain hypermetabolism in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a FDG PET study in ALS of spinal and bulbar onset

Original Article

Estimation of regional bone metabolism from whole-body 18F-fluoride PET static images

Original Article

A pharmacokinetic PET study of NK1 receptor occupancy

Book Review

Frederik Barkhof, Nick C. Fox, Antonio J. Bastos-Leite, Philip Scheltens (eds): Neuroimaging in Dementia

Image of the Month

Voriconazole-induced periostitis

Editorial

Amyloid-β imaging with PET in Alzheimer’s disease: is it feasible with current radiotracers and technologies?