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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Nuclear Medicine
Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine 10/2015

01-12-2015 | Original Article

Evaluation of bone scan index change over time on automated calculation in bone scintigraphy

Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine | Issue 10/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Bone scintigraphy (bone scan) is useful in detecting metastatic bone lesions through visual assessment of hot spots. A semi-quantitative analysis method that evaluates bone scan images has been eagerly anticipated. BONENAVI is software that enables automatic assessment of bone scan index (BSI). BSI is useful for stratifying cancer patients and monitoring their therapeutic response. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the BONENAVI reading in determining BSI and hot spots at different time intervals after radioisotope injection.

Methods

We evaluated 32 patients, including 22 males and 10 females. Ten patients had breast cancer, 20 patients had prostate cancer, and 2 had malignant pheochromocytoma. Patients were injected with 740 MBq of 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate and bone scintigraphy was performed at 2, 4, and 6 h after injection on each patient. The BSI and the number of hot spots were obtained from BONENAVI software. Bone scan images were also visually assessed to exclude false positives due to artifacts. Analyses were performed in all lesions, selected true lesions, segment based and cancer type based. Non-parametric statistical analyses for pairwise multiple group comparison were performed using Friedman test followed with post hoc analysis.

Results

The BSIs and the number of hot spots were significantly increased with time, with significant differences between each of time points (P < 0.001). Analysis of regional BSI (rBSI) and hot spot number changes of selected 15 true lesions also showed similar increase (P < 0.001). In general, the pelvic segment was the most prone to rBSI changes and the chest segment was the most prone to hot spot number changes. Visual assessment showed that BONENAVI diagnosed some typical artifacts as metastases (hot spots).

Conclusion

BONENAVI reading of BSIs and hot spot numbers was highly affected by acquisition time. In serial or follow-up examinations (in particular, for monitoring therapeutic efficacy), acquisition time should be fixed for each patient. Cautious interpretation should be made on segments with high physiological uptake. BONENAVI reading was prone to misinterpretation of artifacts. Visual assessment is necessary to rule out this possibility.
Literature
1.
Coleman RE. Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:6243s–9s.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Erdi YE, Humm JL, Imbriaco M, Yeung H, Larson SM. Quantitative bone metastases analysis based on image segmentation. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1401–6.PubMed
3.
Imbriaco M, Larson SM, Yeung HW, Mawlawi OR, Erdi Y, Venkatraman ES, et al. A new parameter for measuring metastatic bone involvement by prostate cancer: the bone scan index. Clin Cancer Res. 1998;4:1765–72.PubMed
4.
Sadik M, Suurkula M, Hoglund P, Jarund A, Edenbrandt L. Quality of planar whole-body bone scan interpretations—a nationwide survey. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1464–72.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Sadik M, Hamadeh I, Nordblom P, Suurkula M, Hoglund P, Ohlsson M, et al. Computer-assisted interpretation of planar whole-body bone scans. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1958–65.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Agatonovic-Kustrin S, Beresford R. Basic concepts of artificial neural network (ANN) modeling and its application in pharmaceutical research. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2000;22:717–27.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Tokuda O, Harada Y, Ohishi Y, Matsunaga N, Edenbrandt L. Investigation of computer-aided diagnosis system for bone scans: a retrospective analysis in 406 patients. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28:329–39.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Ulmert D, Kaboteh R, Fox JJ, Savage C, Evans MJ, Lilja H, et al. A novel automated platform for quantifying the extent of skeletal tumour involvement in prostate cancer patients using the bone scan index. Eur Urol. 2012;62:78–84.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
9.
Wakabayashi H, Nakajima K, Mizokami A, Namiki M, Inaki A, Taki J, et al. Bone scintigraphy as a new imaging biomarker: the relationship between bone scan index and bone metabolic markers in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. Ann Nucl Med. 2013;27:802–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kikuchi A, Onoguchi M, Horikoshi H, Sjostrand K, Edenbrandt L. Automated segmentation of the skeleton in whole-body bone scans: influence of difference in atlas. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:947–53.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Nakajima K, Nakajima Y, Horikoshi H, Ueno M, Wakabayashi H, Shiga T, et al. Enhanced diagnostic accuracy for quantitative bone scan using an artificial neural network system: a Japanese multi-center database project. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3:83.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
12.
Donohoe KJ, Henkin RE, Royal HD, Brown ML, Collier BD, O’Mara RE, et al. Procedure guideline for bone scintigraphy: 1.0. Society of Nuclear Medicine. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1903–6.PubMed
13.
Bombardieri E, Aktolun C, Baum R, Bishof-Delaloye A, Buscombe J, Chatal J, et al. Bone scintigraphy: procedure guidelines for tumour imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:B99–106.
14.
Saha GB. Fundamentals of nuclear pharmacy. New York: Springer Science + Business Media; 2010. p. 297.CrossRef
15.
Karesh SM. Principles of radiopharmacy. In: Henkin RE, editor. Nuclear medicine. 2nd ed. Michigan: Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p. 334.
16.
Rosenthall L, Arzoumanian A, Damtew BU, Tremblay J. A crossover study comparing Tc-99m-labeled HMDP and MDP in patients. Clin Nucl Med. 1981;6:353–5.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Van Duzee BF, Schaefer JA, Ball JD, Chilton HM, Cowan RJ, Kuni C, et al. Relative lesion detection ability of Tc-99m HMDP and Tc-99m MDP: concise communication. J Nucl Med. 1984;25:166–9.PubMed
18.
Lecouvet FE, Talbot JN, Messiou C, Bourguet P, Liu Y, de Souza NM, et al. Monitoring the response of bone metastases to treatment with magnetic resonance imaging and nuclear medicine techniques: a review and position statement by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer imaging group. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:2519–31.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Soloway MS, Hardeman SW, Hickey D, Raymond J, Todd B, Soloway S, et al. Stratification of patients with metastatic prostate cancer based on extent of disease on initial bone scan. Cancer. 1988;61:195–202.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Gnanasegaran G, Cook G, Fogelman I. Musculoskeletal system. In: Biersack H, Freeman LM, editors. Clinical nuclear medicine. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2007. p. 241.CrossRef
21.
Weiner RE. Bone imaging radiopharmaceutical. In: Henkin RE, editor. Nuclear medicine. Michigan: Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p. 1117.
22.
Koizumi M, Wagatsuma K, Miyaji N, Murata T, Miwa K, Takiguchi T, et al. Evaluation of a computer-assisted diagnosis system, BONENAVI version 2, for bone scintigraphy in cancer patients in a routine clinical setting. Ann Nucl Med. 2015;29:138–48.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Yoneyama S, Miyoshi Y, Takebayashi S, Noguchi K. Prognostic value of computer-aided diagnosis system for bone scans in hormone-naive prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:276–7.CrossRef
24.
Tofe AJ, Francis MD, Harvey WJ. Correlation of neoplasms with incidence and localization of skeletal metastases: an analysis of 1355 diphosphonate bone scans. J Nucl Med. 1975;16:986–9.PubMed
25.
Iwase T, Yamamoto N, Ichihara H, Togawa T, Nagashima T, Miyazaki M. The relationship between skeletal-related events and bone scan index for the treatment of bone metastasis with breast cancer patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2014;93:e269.CrossRef
26.
Coakley FV, Jones AR, Finlay DB, Belton IP. The aetiology and distinguishing features of solitary spinal hot spots on planar bone scans. Clin Radiol. 1995;50:327–30.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of bone scan index change over time on automated calculation in bone scintigraphy
Publication date
01-12-2015
Published in
Annals of Nuclear Medicine / Issue 10/2015
Print ISSN: 0914-7187
Electronic ISSN: 1864-6433
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-015-1021-3

Other articles of this Issue 10/2015

Annals of Nuclear Medicine 10/2015 Go to the issue

Original Article

Imaging of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma with PSMA-targeted 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT

Original Article

Detection of local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: Is there a role for early 18F-FCH PET/CT?

Original Article

Preparation, quality control and biodistribution assessment of 153Sm-BPAMD as a novel agent for bone pain palliation therapy

Original Article

18F-FPRGD2 PET/CT imaging of musculoskeletal disorders

Original Article

Clinical significance of dual-time-point 18F-FDG PET imaging in resectable non-small cell lung cancer

Original Article

Correlation between FDG-PET/CT findings and solid type non-small cell cancer prognostic factors: are there differences between adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma?