Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

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.

BACKGROUND: The detection of occult bone metastases is a key factor in determining the management of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), especially when curative surgery is considered. This prospective study assessed the sensitivity of (18)F-labelled sodium fluoride in conjunction with positron emission tomography/computed tomography ((18)F-NaF PET/CT) for detecting RCC bone metastases, compared with conventional imaging by bone scintigraphy or CT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: An adaptive two-stage trial design was utilized, which was stopped after the first stage due to statistical efficacy. Ten patients with stage IV RCC and bone metastases were imaged with (18)F-NaF PET/CT and (99m)Tc-labelled methylene diphosphonate ((99m)Tc-MDP) bone scintigraphy including pelvic single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Images were reported independently by experienced radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians using a 5-point scoring system.

RESULTS: Seventy-seven lesions were diagnosed as malignant: 100% were identified by (18)F-NaF PET/CT, 46% by CT and 29% by bone scintigraphy/SPECT. Standard-of-care imaging with CT and bone scintigraphy identified 65% of the metastases reported by (18)F-NaF PET/CT. On an individual patient basis, (18)F-NaF PET/CT detected more RCC metastases than (99m)Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy/SPECT or CT alone (P = 0.007). The metabolic volumes, mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUV mean and SUV max) of the malignant lesions were significantly greater than those of the benign lesions (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-NaF PET/CT is significantly more sensitive at detecting RCC skeletal metastases than conventional bone scintigraphy or CT. The detection of occult bone metastases could greatly alter patient management, particularly in the context when standard-of-care imaging is negative for skeletal metastases.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app