PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · World J Nucl Med 2022; 21(01): 001-008
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748154
Review Article

Comparison of 18F-NaF Imaging, 99mTc-MDP Scintigraphy, and 18F-FDG for Detecting Bone Metastases

Habibollah Dadgar
1   Cancer Research Center, Imam Reza International University, Razavi Hospital, Mashhad, Iran
,
Nasim Norouzbeigi
1   Cancer Research Center, Imam Reza International University, Razavi Hospital, Mashhad, Iran
,
Narges Jokar
2   Department of Molecular Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy (MIRT), The Persian Gulf Nuclear Medicine Research Center, School of Medicine, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr Medical University Hospital, Bushehr, Iran
,
Jafar Zareizadeh
3   Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
,
Ali Gholamrezanezhad
4   Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar
5   Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Westfalen, Dortmund, Germany
,
Moloud Abbaszadeh
6   Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
,
Majid Assadi
2   Department of Molecular Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy (MIRT), The Persian Gulf Nuclear Medicine Research Center, School of Medicine, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr Medical University Hospital, Bushehr, Iran
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Bone is a common metastasis site in several malignancies, most importantly prostate and breast cancers. Given the significance of the early and accurate diagnosis of bone metastases for preliminary staging, treatment planning and monitoring, restaging, and survival prediction in patients with malignancy, it is critical to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of imaging modalities. Although technetium-99m-labeled diphosphonates [99mTc-MDP] scintigraphy has been used for assessing skeletal involvement, there is a renewed interest in fluorine-18-labeled sodium fluoride [18F-NaF] bone imaging with positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography, since this approach provides essential advantages in bone metastases evaluation. This review study aimed to discuss the basic and technical aspects of 18F-NaF imaging and its mechanism of action, and compare this modality with the 99mTc-MDP bone scan and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose using current evidence from the pertinent literature and case examples of the center in the study.

Keywords

skeletal metastases - fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) - sodium fluoride (NaF) - 99mTc-MDP

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


Informed Consent

The Institutional Review Board of Razavi Hospital approved all case reports.




Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
30. April 2022

© 2022. World Association of Radiopharmaceutical and Molecular Therapy (WARMTH). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Yu HH, Tsai YY, Hoffe SE. Overview of diagnosis and management of metastatic disease to bone. Cancer Contr 2012; 19 (02) 84-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Guise TA. The vicious cycle of bone metastases. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 2002; 2 (06) 570-572
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Brown JE, Cook RJ, Major P. et al. Bone turnover markers as predictors of skeletal complications in prostate cancer, lung cancer, and other solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97 (01) 59-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pelger RC, Soerdjbalie-Maikoe V, Hamdy NA. Strategies for management of prostate cancer-related bone pain. Drugs Aging 2001; 18 (12) 899-911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Coleman RE. Management of bone metastases. Oncologist 2000; 5 (06) 463-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Messiou C, Cook G, deSouza NM. Imaging metastatic bone disease from carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Cancer 2009; 101 (08) 1225-1232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gurkan G, Sarikaya I, Sarikaya A. Semiquantitative assessment of osteoblastic, osteolytic, and mixed lytic-sclerotic bone lesions on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and bone scintigraphy. World J Nucl Med 2019; 18 (02) 132-136
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Blau M, Nagler W, Bender MA. Fluorine-18: a new isotope for bone scanning. J Nucl Med 1962; 3: 332-334
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Blau M, Ganatra R, Bender MA. 18 F-fluoride for bone imaging. Semin Nucl Med 1972; 2 (01) 31-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hawkins RA, Hoh C, Glaspy J. et al. The role of positron emission tomography in oncology and other whole-body applications. Semin Nucl Med 1992; 22 (04) 268-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Costelloe CM, Chuang HH, Madewell JE. FDG PET/CT of primary bone tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202 (06) W521-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Iagaru A, Young P, Mittra E, Dick DW, Herfkens R, Gambhir SS. Pilot prospective evaluation of 99mTc-MDP scintigraphy, 18F NaF PET/CT, 18F FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI for detection of skeletal metastases. Clin Nucl Med 2013; 38 (07) e290-e296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Langsteger W, Heinisch M, Fogelman I. The role of fluorodeoxyglucose, 18F-dihydroxyphenylalanine, 18F-choline, and 18F-fluoride in bone imaging with emphasis on prostate and breast. Semin Nucl Med 2006; 36 (01) 73-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ahuja K, Sotoudeh H, Galgano SJ. et al. 18F-sodium fluoride PET: history, technical feasibility, mechanism of action, normal biodistribution, and diagnostic performance in bone metastasis detection compared with other imaging modalities. J Nucl Med Technol 2020; 48 (01) 9-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Subramanian G, McAfee JG, Blair RJ, Thomas FD. Radiopharmaceuticals for bone and bone-marrow imaging. International symposium on medical radionuclide imaging 1977; 2: 83-102
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Eerola O. Production of pharmaceutical radioisotopes. Master's thesis. Department of Physics, University of Jyväskylä; 2018. , 88 pages
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Segall G, Delbeke D, Stabin MG. et al; SNM practice guideline for sodium 18F-fluoride PET/CT bone scans 1.0. J Nucl Med 2010; 51 (11) 1813-1820
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jadvar H, Desai B, Conti PS. Sodium 18F-fluoride PET/CT of bone, joint, and other disorders. Semin Nucl Med 2015; 45 (01) 58-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Blake GM, Park-Holohan SJ, Cook GJ, Fogelman I. Quantitative studies of bone with the use of 18F-fluoride and 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate. Semin Nucl Med 2001; 31 (01) 28-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hoh CK, Hawkins RA, Dahlbom M. et al. Whole body skeletal imaging with [18F]fluoride ion and PET. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993; 17 (01) 34-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Grant FD, Fahey FH, Packard AB, Davis RT, Alavi A, Treves ST. Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: applying new technology to an old tracer. J Nucl Med 2008; 49 (01) 68-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mick CG, James T, Hill JD, Williams P, Perry M. Molecular imaging in oncology: (18)F-sodium fluoride PET imaging of osseous metastatic disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203 (02) 263-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Czernin J, Satyamurthy N, Schiepers C. Molecular mechanisms of bone 18F-NaF deposition. J Nucl Med 2010; 51 (12) 1826-1829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Weber DA, Greenberg EJ, Dimich A. et al. Kinetics of radionuclides used for bone studies. J Nucl Med 1969; 10 (01) 8-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bridges RL, Wiley CR, Christian JC, Strohm AP. An introduction to Na(18)F bone scintigraphy: basic principles, advanced imaging concepts, and case examples. J Nucl Med Technol 2007; 35 (02) 64-76 , quiz 78–79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Langsteger W, Rezaee A, Pirich C, Beheshti M. 18F-NaF-PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2016; 46 (06) 491-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hyldstrup L, McNair P, Ring P, Henriksen O. Studies on diphosphonate kinetics. Part II: Whole body bone uptake rate during constant infusion–a refined index of bone metabolism. Eur J Nucl Med 1987; 12 (12) 585-588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Piccardo A, Altrinetti V, Bacigalupo L. et al. Detection of metastatic bone lesions in breast cancer patients: fused (18)F-Fluoride-PET/MDCT has higher accuracy than MDCT. Preliminary experience. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81 (10) 2632-2638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Schirrmeister H, Guhlmann A, Kotzerke J. et al. Early detection and accurate description of extent of metastatic bone disease in breast cancer with fluoride ion and positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17 (08) 2381-2389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kulshrestha RK, Vinjamuri S, England A, Nightingale J, Hogg P. The role of 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT bone scans in the diagnosis of metastatic bone disease from breast and prostate cancer. J Nucl Med Technol 2016; 44 (04) 217-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Iagaru A, Mittra E, Dick DW, Gambhir SS. Prospective evaluation of (99m)Tc MDP scintigraphy, (18)F NaF PET/CT, and (18)F FDG PET/CT for detection of skeletal metastases. Mol Imaging Biol 2012; 14 (02) 252-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Jadvar H, Colletti PM, Delgado-Bolton R. et al. Appropriate use criteria for 18F-FDG PET/CT in restaging and treatment response assessment of malignant disease. J Nucl Med 2017; 58 (12) 2026-2037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Flusser G. et al. Assessment of malignant skeletal disease: initial experience with 18F-fluoride PET/CT and comparison between 18F-fluoride PET and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004; 45 (02) 272-278
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Beheshti M, Langsteger W. 18F NaF PET/CT in the assessment of metastatic bone disease: comparison with specific PET tracers. PET Clin 2012; 7 (03) 303-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Abikhzer G, Kennedy J, Israel O. 18F NaF PET/CT and conventional bone scanning in routine clinical practice: comparative analysis of tracers, clinical acquisition protocols, and performance indices. PET Clin 2012; 7 (03) 315-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bortot DC, Amorim BJ, Oki GC. et al. 18F-Fluoride PET/CT is highly effective for excluding bone metastases even in patients with equivocal bone scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39 (11) 1730-1736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Krüger S, Buck AK, Mottaghy FM. 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) 1807-1812
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Zhang Y, Shi H, Cheng D. et al. Added value of SPECT/spiral CT versus SPECT in diagnosing solitary spinal lesions in patients with extraskeletal malignancies. Nucl Med Commun 2013; 34 (05) 451-458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Ota N, Kato K, Iwano S. et al. Comparison of 18F-fluoride PET/CT, 18F-FDG PET/CT and bone scintigraphy (planar and SPECT) in detection of bone metastases of differentiated thyroid cancer: a pilot study. Br J Radiol 2014; 87 (1034): 20130444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Chakraborty D, Bhattacharya A, Mete UK, Mittal BR. Comparison of 18F fluoride PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scan in the detection of skeletal metastases in urinary bladder carcinoma. Clin Nucl Med 2013; 38 (08) 616-621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Schirrmeister H, Glatting G, Hetzel J. 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) 1800-1804
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, Lievshitz G, Lerman H, Leibovitch I. The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006; 47 (02) 287-297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Sheth S, Colletti PM. Atlas of sodium fluoride PET bone scans: atlas of NaF PET bone scans. Clin Nucl Med 2012; 37 (05) e110-e116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Sheikhbahaei S, Jones KM, Werner RA. et al. 18F-NaF-PET/CT for the detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Nucl Med 2019; 33 (05) 351-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Yen RF, Chen CY, Cheng MF. et al. The diagnostic and prognostic effectiveness of F-18 sodium fluoride PET-CT in detecting bone metastases for hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Nucl Med Commun 2010; 31 (07) 637-645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Pauwels EK, Ribeiro MJ, Stoot JH, McCready VR, Bourguignon M, Mazière B. FDG accumulation and tumor biology. Nucl Med Biol 1998; 25 (04) 317-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Lapa P, Saraiva T, Silva R, Marques M, Costa G, Lima JP. Superiority of 18F-FNa PET/CT for detecting bone metastases in comparison with other diagnostic imaging modalities. Acta Med Port 2017; 30 (01) 53-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Tarnawska-Pierścińska M, Hołody Ł, Braziewicz J, Królicki L. Bone metastases diagnosis possibilities in studies with the use of 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 2011; 14 (02) 105-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Nakai T, Okuyama C, Kubota T. 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) 1253-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Damle N, Bal C, Bandopadhyaya G, Kumar L, Kumar P. Role of 18F fluoride PET/CT in the detection of bone metastases in breast cancer patients. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 142P-142P
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Sampath SC, Sampath SC, Mosci C. et al. Detection of osseous metastasis by 18F-NaF/18F-FDG PET/CT versus CT alone. Clin Nucl Med 2015; 40 (03) e173-e177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Roop MJ, Singh B, Singh H. et al. Incremental value of cocktail 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET/CT over 18F-FDG PET/CT alone for characterization of skeletal metastases in breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2017; 42 (05) 335-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Minamimoto R, Loening A, Jamali M. et al. Prospective comparison of 99mTc-MDP scintigraphy, combined 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG PET/CT, and whole-body MRI in patients with breast and prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2015; 56 (12) 1862-1868
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Yang HL, Liu T, Wang XM, Xu Y, Deng SM. Diagnosis of bone metastases: a meta-analysis comparing 18FDG PET, CT, MRI and bone scintigraphy. Eur Radiol 2011; 21 (12) 2604-2617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Piccardo A, Puntoni M, Morbelli S. et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT is a prognostic biomarker in patients affected by bone metastases from breast cancer in comparison with 18F-NaF PET/CT. Nucl Med (Stuttg) 2015; 54 (04) 163-172
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Nørgaard M, Jensen AØ, Jacobsen JB, Cetin K, Fryzek JP, Sørensen HT. Skeletal related events, bone metastasis and survival of prostate cancer: a population based cohort study in Denmark (1999 to 2007). J Urol 2010; 184 (01) 162-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Madsen C, Østergren P, Haarmark C. The value of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT following equivocal 18F-NaF PET/CT in prostate cancer patients. Diagnostics (Basel) 2020; 10 (06) 352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Zacho HD, Nielsen JB, Afshar-Oromieh A. et al. Prospective comparison of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT and diffusion weighted-MRI at for the detection of bone metastases in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 45 (11) 1884-1897
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar