Whole-Body SPECT/CT versus Planar Bone Scan with Targeted SPECT/CT for Metastatic Workup
Purpose. The use of SPECT/CT in bone scans has been widespread in recent years, but there are no specific guidelines concerning the optimal acquisition protocol. Two strategies have been proposed: targeted SPECT/CT for equivocal lesions detected on planar images or systematic whole-body SPECT/CT. Ou...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BioMed research international 2017-01, Vol.2017 (2017), p.1-8 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 8 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2017 |
| container_start_page | 1 |
| container_title | BioMed research international |
| container_volume | 2017 |
| creator | Ratib, Osman Zilli, Thomas Amzalag, Gaël Zaidi, Habib Tabouret-Viaud, Claire Garibotto, Valentina Exquis, Nadia Nkoulou, René Rager, Olivier Lee-Felker, Stephanie Anne |
| description | Purpose. The use of SPECT/CT in bone scans has been widespread in recent years, but there are no specific guidelines concerning the optimal acquisition protocol. Two strategies have been proposed: targeted SPECT/CT for equivocal lesions detected on planar images or systematic whole-body SPECT/CT. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the two approaches. Methods. 212 consecutive patients with a history of cancer were referred for bone scans to detect bone metastases. Two experienced readers randomly evaluated for each patient either planar images with one-field SPECT/CT targeted on equivocal focal uptakes (targeted SPECT/CT) or a whole-body (two-field) SPECT/CT acquisition from the base of the skull to the proximal femurs (whole-body SPECT/CT). The exams were categorized as “nonmetastatic,” “equivocal,” or “metastatic” on both protocols. The presence or absence of any extra-axial skeletal lesions was also assessed. The sensitivity and specificity of both strategies were measured using the results of subsequent imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Results. Whole-body SPECT/CT had a significantly higher sensitivity than targeted SPECT/CT to detect bone metastases (p=0.0297) and to detect extra-axial metastases (p=0.0266). There was no significant difference in specificity among the two approaches. Conclusion. Whole-body SPECT/CT is the optimal modality of choice for metastatic workup, including detection of extra-axial lesions, with improved sensitivity and similar specificity compared to targeted SPECT/CT. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1155/2017/7039406 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5546128</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A557302583</galeid><sourcerecordid>A557302583</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-450840f3b89a7248808c8057f9f85c744ed0d820b86b2fbd2dea164f8daefe863</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0c1r2zAYBnAzNtbS9dbzMOwy2Lzo268ugzZ0H9DRQlO6m5DtV4k7x0olu6X__RSSJttO80UG_fRIL0-WnVDyiVIpJ4zQclISrgVRL7JDxqkoFBX05e6f84PsOMY7kj6gimj1OjtgADQd1YfZz9uF77A4881Tfn11Pp1NprP8AUMcY37V2d6G_Mz3mF_Xts8f22GRz2yY44DNnjsf8h842DjYoa3zWx9-jas32Stnu4jH2_Uou_lyPpt-Ky4uv36fnl4UtdB6KIQkIIjjFWhbMgFAoAYiS6cdyLoUAhvSACMVqIq5qmENWqqEg8aiQ1D8KPu8yV2N1RKbGvsh2M6sQru04cl425q_d_p2Yeb-wUgpFGWQAt5vA4K_HzEOZtnGGrs0PPoxGqqZBl0Cl4m--4fe-TH0aby1UoIJDnSv5rZD0_bOp3vrdag5lbLkhEngSX3cqDr4GAO63ZMpMetuzbpbs-028bd_jrnDz00m8GEDFm3f2Mf2P-MwGXR2rykHLhT_DSaSsjI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1926424381</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Whole-Body SPECT/CT versus Planar Bone Scan with Targeted SPECT/CT for Metastatic Workup</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Ratib, Osman ; Zilli, Thomas ; Amzalag, Gaël ; Zaidi, Habib ; Tabouret-Viaud, Claire ; Garibotto, Valentina ; Exquis, Nadia ; Nkoulou, René ; Rager, Olivier ; Lee-Felker, Stephanie Anne</creator><contributor>Ogawa, Kazuma</contributor><creatorcontrib>Ratib, Osman ; Zilli, Thomas ; Amzalag, Gaël ; Zaidi, Habib ; Tabouret-Viaud, Claire ; Garibotto, Valentina ; Exquis, Nadia ; Nkoulou, René ; Rager, Olivier ; Lee-Felker, Stephanie Anne ; Ogawa, Kazuma</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose. The use of SPECT/CT in bone scans has been widespread in recent years, but there are no specific guidelines concerning the optimal acquisition protocol. Two strategies have been proposed: targeted SPECT/CT for equivocal lesions detected on planar images or systematic whole-body SPECT/CT. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the two approaches. Methods. 212 consecutive patients with a history of cancer were referred for bone scans to detect bone metastases. Two experienced readers randomly evaluated for each patient either planar images with one-field SPECT/CT targeted on equivocal focal uptakes (targeted SPECT/CT) or a whole-body (two-field) SPECT/CT acquisition from the base of the skull to the proximal femurs (whole-body SPECT/CT). The exams were categorized as “nonmetastatic,” “equivocal,” or “metastatic” on both protocols. The presence or absence of any extra-axial skeletal lesions was also assessed. The sensitivity and specificity of both strategies were measured using the results of subsequent imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Results. Whole-body SPECT/CT had a significantly higher sensitivity than targeted SPECT/CT to detect bone metastases (p=0.0297) and to detect extra-axial metastases (p=0.0266). There was no significant difference in specificity among the two approaches. Conclusion. Whole-body SPECT/CT is the optimal modality of choice for metastatic workup, including detection of extra-axial lesions, with improved sensitivity and similar specificity compared to targeted SPECT/CT.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2314-6133</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2314-6141</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1155/2017/7039406</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28812019</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cairo, Egypt: Hindawi Publishing Corporation</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Bone cancer ; Bone Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Bone Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Bone Neoplasms - pathology ; Bone Neoplasms - secondary ; Cameras ; Cancer ; Computed tomography ; Development and progression ; Diagnostic systems ; Drug dosages ; Female ; Humans ; Image detection ; Lesions ; Male ; Medical imaging ; Metastases ; Metastasis ; Methods ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Neoplasms - pathology ; Nuclear medicine ; Observations ; Patients ; Prostate ; Radiopharmaceuticals - therapeutic use ; Readers ; Sensitivity ; Sensitivity analysis ; Single photon emission computed tomography ; Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Computed Tomography - methods ; SPECT imaging ; Tomography</subject><ispartof>BioMed research international, 2017-01, Vol.2017 (2017), p.1-8</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2017 Olivier Rager et al.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Olivier Rager et al.; This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Olivier Rager et al. 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-450840f3b89a7248808c8057f9f85c744ed0d820b86b2fbd2dea164f8daefe863</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-450840f3b89a7248808c8057f9f85c744ed0d820b86b2fbd2dea164f8daefe863</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6468-6529 ; 0000-0002-7030-2878 ; 0000-0001-7559-5297</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5546128/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5546128/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27923,27924,53790,53792</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28812019$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Ogawa, Kazuma</contributor><creatorcontrib>Ratib, Osman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zilli, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amzalag, Gaël</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaidi, Habib</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tabouret-Viaud, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garibotto, Valentina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Exquis, Nadia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nkoulou, René</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rager, Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee-Felker, Stephanie Anne</creatorcontrib><title>Whole-Body SPECT/CT versus Planar Bone Scan with Targeted SPECT/CT for Metastatic Workup</title><title>BioMed research international</title><addtitle>Biomed Res Int</addtitle><description>Purpose. The use of SPECT/CT in bone scans has been widespread in recent years, but there are no specific guidelines concerning the optimal acquisition protocol. Two strategies have been proposed: targeted SPECT/CT for equivocal lesions detected on planar images or systematic whole-body SPECT/CT. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the two approaches. Methods. 212 consecutive patients with a history of cancer were referred for bone scans to detect bone metastases. Two experienced readers randomly evaluated for each patient either planar images with one-field SPECT/CT targeted on equivocal focal uptakes (targeted SPECT/CT) or a whole-body (two-field) SPECT/CT acquisition from the base of the skull to the proximal femurs (whole-body SPECT/CT). The exams were categorized as “nonmetastatic,” “equivocal,” or “metastatic” on both protocols. The presence or absence of any extra-axial skeletal lesions was also assessed. The sensitivity and specificity of both strategies were measured using the results of subsequent imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Results. Whole-body SPECT/CT had a significantly higher sensitivity than targeted SPECT/CT to detect bone metastases (p=0.0297) and to detect extra-axial metastases (p=0.0266). There was no significant difference in specificity among the two approaches. Conclusion. Whole-body SPECT/CT is the optimal modality of choice for metastatic workup, including detection of extra-axial lesions, with improved sensitivity and similar specificity compared to targeted SPECT/CT.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Bone cancer</subject><subject>Bone Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Bone Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Bone Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Bone Neoplasms - secondary</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Development and progression</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Drug dosages</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image detection</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Metastasis</subject><subject>Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Nuclear medicine</subject><subject>Observations</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prostate</subject><subject>Radiopharmaceuticals - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Readers</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Single photon emission computed tomography</subject><subject>Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Computed Tomography - methods</subject><subject>SPECT imaging</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><issn>2314-6133</issn><issn>2314-6141</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>RHX</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0c1r2zAYBnAzNtbS9dbzMOwy2Lzo268ugzZ0H9DRQlO6m5DtV4k7x0olu6X__RSSJttO80UG_fRIL0-WnVDyiVIpJ4zQclISrgVRL7JDxqkoFBX05e6f84PsOMY7kj6gimj1OjtgADQd1YfZz9uF77A4881Tfn11Pp1NprP8AUMcY37V2d6G_Mz3mF_Xts8f22GRz2yY44DNnjsf8h842DjYoa3zWx9-jas32Stnu4jH2_Uou_lyPpt-Ky4uv36fnl4UtdB6KIQkIIjjFWhbMgFAoAYiS6cdyLoUAhvSACMVqIq5qmENWqqEg8aiQ1D8KPu8yV2N1RKbGvsh2M6sQru04cl425q_d_p2Yeb-wUgpFGWQAt5vA4K_HzEOZtnGGrs0PPoxGqqZBl0Cl4m--4fe-TH0aby1UoIJDnSv5rZD0_bOp3vrdag5lbLkhEngSX3cqDr4GAO63ZMpMetuzbpbs-028bd_jrnDz00m8GEDFm3f2Mf2P-MwGXR2rykHLhT_DSaSsjI</recordid><startdate>20170101</startdate><enddate>20170101</enddate><creator>Ratib, Osman</creator><creator>Zilli, Thomas</creator><creator>Amzalag, Gaël</creator><creator>Zaidi, Habib</creator><creator>Tabouret-Viaud, Claire</creator><creator>Garibotto, Valentina</creator><creator>Exquis, Nadia</creator><creator>Nkoulou, René</creator><creator>Rager, Olivier</creator><creator>Lee-Felker, Stephanie Anne</creator><general>Hindawi Publishing Corporation</general><general>Hindawi</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Hindawi Limited</general><scope>ADJCN</scope><scope>AHFXO</scope><scope>RHU</scope><scope>RHW</scope><scope>RHX</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CWDGH</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6468-6529</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7030-2878</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7559-5297</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170101</creationdate><title>Whole-Body SPECT/CT versus Planar Bone Scan with Targeted SPECT/CT for Metastatic Workup</title><author>Ratib, Osman ; Zilli, Thomas ; Amzalag, Gaël ; Zaidi, Habib ; Tabouret-Viaud, Claire ; Garibotto, Valentina ; Exquis, Nadia ; Nkoulou, René ; Rager, Olivier ; Lee-Felker, Stephanie Anne</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-450840f3b89a7248808c8057f9f85c744ed0d820b86b2fbd2dea164f8daefe863</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Bone cancer</topic><topic>Bone Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Bone Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Bone Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Bone Neoplasms - secondary</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Development and progression</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Drug dosages</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image detection</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Metastasis</topic><topic>Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Nuclear medicine</topic><topic>Observations</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prostate</topic><topic>Radiopharmaceuticals - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Readers</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Single photon emission computed tomography</topic><topic>Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Computed Tomography - methods</topic><topic>SPECT imaging</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ratib, Osman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zilli, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amzalag, Gaël</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaidi, Habib</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tabouret-Viaud, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garibotto, Valentina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Exquis, Nadia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nkoulou, René</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rager, Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee-Felker, Stephanie Anne</creatorcontrib><collection>الدوريات العلمية والإحصائية - e-Marefa Academic and Statistical Periodicals</collection><collection>معرفة - المحتوى العربي الأكاديمي المتكامل - e-Marefa Academic Complete</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Complete</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Subscription Journals</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Open Access Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Middle East & Africa Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BioMed research international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ratib, Osman</au><au>Zilli, Thomas</au><au>Amzalag, Gaël</au><au>Zaidi, Habib</au><au>Tabouret-Viaud, Claire</au><au>Garibotto, Valentina</au><au>Exquis, Nadia</au><au>Nkoulou, René</au><au>Rager, Olivier</au><au>Lee-Felker, Stephanie Anne</au><au>Ogawa, Kazuma</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Whole-Body SPECT/CT versus Planar Bone Scan with Targeted SPECT/CT for Metastatic Workup</atitle><jtitle>BioMed research international</jtitle><addtitle>Biomed Res Int</addtitle><date>2017-01-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>2017</volume><issue>2017</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>8</epage><pages>1-8</pages><issn>2314-6133</issn><eissn>2314-6141</eissn><abstract>Purpose. The use of SPECT/CT in bone scans has been widespread in recent years, but there are no specific guidelines concerning the optimal acquisition protocol. Two strategies have been proposed: targeted SPECT/CT for equivocal lesions detected on planar images or systematic whole-body SPECT/CT. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the two approaches. Methods. 212 consecutive patients with a history of cancer were referred for bone scans to detect bone metastases. Two experienced readers randomly evaluated for each patient either planar images with one-field SPECT/CT targeted on equivocal focal uptakes (targeted SPECT/CT) or a whole-body (two-field) SPECT/CT acquisition from the base of the skull to the proximal femurs (whole-body SPECT/CT). The exams were categorized as “nonmetastatic,” “equivocal,” or “metastatic” on both protocols. The presence or absence of any extra-axial skeletal lesions was also assessed. The sensitivity and specificity of both strategies were measured using the results of subsequent imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Results. Whole-body SPECT/CT had a significantly higher sensitivity than targeted SPECT/CT to detect bone metastases (p=0.0297) and to detect extra-axial metastases (p=0.0266). There was no significant difference in specificity among the two approaches. Conclusion. Whole-body SPECT/CT is the optimal modality of choice for metastatic workup, including detection of extra-axial lesions, with improved sensitivity and similar specificity compared to targeted SPECT/CT.</abstract><cop>Cairo, Egypt</cop><pub>Hindawi Publishing Corporation</pub><pmid>28812019</pmid><doi>10.1155/2017/7039406</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6468-6529</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7030-2878</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7559-5297</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2314-6133 |
| ispartof | BioMed research international, 2017-01, Vol.2017 (2017), p.1-8 |
| issn | 2314-6133 2314-6141 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5546128 |
| source | MEDLINE; PubMed Central Open Access; Wiley Online Library Open Access; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Bone cancer Bone Neoplasms - diagnosis Bone Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Bone Neoplasms - pathology Bone Neoplasms - secondary Cameras Cancer Computed tomography Development and progression Diagnostic systems Drug dosages Female Humans Image detection Lesions Male Medical imaging Metastases Metastasis Methods Middle Aged Neoplasm Metastasis Neoplasms - diagnosis Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Neoplasms - pathology Nuclear medicine Observations Patients Prostate Radiopharmaceuticals - therapeutic use Readers Sensitivity Sensitivity analysis Single photon emission computed tomography Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Computed Tomography - methods SPECT imaging Tomography |
| title | Whole-Body SPECT/CT versus Planar Bone Scan with Targeted SPECT/CT for Metastatic Workup |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T21%3A16%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Whole-Body%20SPECT/CT%20versus%20Planar%20Bone%20Scan%20with%20Targeted%20SPECT/CT%20for%20Metastatic%20Workup&rft.jtitle=BioMed%20research%20international&rft.au=Ratib,%20Osman&rft.date=2017-01-01&rft.volume=2017&rft.issue=2017&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=8&rft.pages=1-8&rft.issn=2314-6133&rft.eissn=2314-6141&rft_id=info:doi/10.1155/2017/7039406&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA557302583%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1926424381&rft_id=info:pmid/28812019&rft_galeid=A557302583&rfr_iscdi=true |