Prospective study of Na[18F]F PET/CT for cancer staging in morbidly obese patients compared with [99mTc]Tc-MDP whole-body planar, SPECT and SPECT/CT

Affiliations


Abstract

Purpose: This prospective study aims to assess the diagnostic test characteristics of Na[18F]F PET/CT for the skeletal staging of cancer in morbidly obese patients compared with 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate (MDP), whole-body planar (WBS), SPECT, and SPECT/CT acquisitions.

Material and methods: One hundred seventeen obese patients (BMI 46.5 ± 6.1 kg/m2 and mean age, 59.0 years; range 32-89 years) with BMI > 40 kg/m2 were prospectively enrolled and underwent [99mTc]Tc-MDP WBS, SPECT, SPECT/CT, and Na[18F]F PET/CT within two weeks for the osseous staging of a malignancy. Images were assessed qualitatively using a 3-point scale. Patient and lesion-based diagnostic test characteristics were estimated using an optimistic and pessimistic dichotomization method.

Results: Bone metastases were confirmed in 44 patients. Patient-based optimistic diagnostic test characteristics were (sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy): Na[18F]F PET/CT (95.5%, 95.9%, 95.7%), [99mTc]Tc-MDP WBS (52.3%, 71.2%, 64.1%), SPECT (61.4%, 80.8%, 73.5%) and SPECT/CT (65.9%, 91.8%, 82.1%). Lesion-based optimistic diagnostic test characteristics were: Na[18F]F PET/CT (97.7%, 97.9%, 97.7%), [99mTc]Tc-MDP WBS (39%, 67%, 48.9%), SPECT (52.9%, 93.6%, 67.3%) and SPECT/CT (65.9%, 91.8%, 82.1%). There was no significant difference in the specificity of Na[18F]F and SPECT/CT. All other pairwise comparisons were significant (p<.001). ROC curve analysis showed a high overall accuracy of Na[18F]F with significantly higher AUCs for Na[18F]F PET/CT compared to [99mTc]Tc-MDP WBS, SPECT, and SPECT/CT on both patient and lesion-based analysis (p<.001). Moreover, Na[18F]F PET/CT changed patient management in 38% of patients.

Conclusions: Na[18F]F PET/CT may be the preferred imaging modality for skeletal staging in morbidly obese patients. The technique provides excellent diagnostic test characteristics superior to [99mTc]Tc-MDP bone scan (including SPECT/CT), impacts patient management, has an acceptable radiation exposure profile, and is well-tolerated. Further cost-effectiveness evaluations are warranted.

Keywords: 18F-NaF PET-CT; 99mTc-MDP; SPECT/CT; metastatic bone disease; obesity.


Similar articles

Comparison of the diagnostic and prognostic values of 99mTc-MDP-planar bone scintigraphy, 131I-SPECT/CT and 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases from differentiated thyroid cancer.

Qiu ZL, Xue YL, Song HJ, Luo QY.Nucl Med Commun. 2012 Dec;33(12):1232-42. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e328358d9c0.PMID: 23111353

Prospective study evaluating the relative sensitivity of 18F-NaF PET/CT for detecting skeletal metastases from renal cell carcinoma in comparison to multidetector CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy, using an adaptive trial design.

Gerety EL, Lawrence EM, Wason J, Yan H, Hilborne S, Buscombe J, Cheow HK, Shaw AS, Bird N, Fife K, Heard S, Lomas DJ, Matakidou A, Soloviev D, Eisen T, Gallagher FA.Ann Oncol. 2015 Oct;26(10):2113-8. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv289. Epub 2015 Jul 22.PMID: 26202597 Free PMC article.

Intra-individual comparison of 18F-sodium fluoride PET-CT and 99mTc bone scintigraphy with SPECT in patients with prostate cancer or breast cancer at high risk for skeletal metastases (MITNEC-A1): a multicentre, phase 3 trial.

Bénard F, Harsini S, Wilson D, Zukotynski K, Abikhzer G, Turcotte E, Cossette M, Metser U, Romsa J, Martin M, Mar C, Saad F, Soucy JP, Eigl BJ, Black P, Krauze A, Burrell S, Nichol A, Tardif JC.Lancet Oncol. 2022 Dec;23(12):1499-1507. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00642-8. Epub 2022 Nov 4.PMID: 36343655 Clinical Trial.

18F-NaF-PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP Bone Scintigraphy in the Detection of Bone Metastases in Prostate Cancer.

Langsteger W, Rezaee A, Pirich C, Beheshti M.Semin Nucl Med. 2016 Nov;46(6):491-501. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2016.07.003. Epub 2016 Sep 13.PMID: 27825429 Review.

Molecular imaging in oncology: (18)F-sodium fluoride PET imaging of osseous metastatic disease.

Mick CG, James T, Hill JD, Williams P, Perry M.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Aug;203(2):263-71. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.12158.PMID: 25055258 Review.


KMEL References