4.6 Article

Does whole-body bone SPECT/CT provide additional diagnostic information over [18F]-FCH PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in the setting of prostate cancer biochemical recurrence?

Journal

CANCER IMAGING
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s40644-020-00333-y

Keywords

Bone SPECT; CT; 18F-FCH; PET; CT; Prostate cancer; Biochemical recurrence; Bone metastases; Molecular imaging; Oncology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background To assess whether whole-body (WB) bone SPECT/CT provides additional diagnostic information over [18F]-FCH PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in the setting of prostate cancer biochemical recurrence (PC-BR). Methods Patients referred for a PC-BR and whom benefited from a WB bone SPECT/CT and FCH PET/CT were retrospectively included. Tests were classified as positive, equivocal, or negative for bone metastases. A best valuable comparator (BVC) strategy including imaging and follow-up data was used to determine the metastatic status in the absence of systematic histological evaluation. Results Between January 2011 and November 2017, 115 consecutive patients with a PC-BR were evaluated. According to the BVC, 30 patients had bone metastases and 85 patients did not present with bone lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were respectively 86.7% [69.3-96.2], 98.8% [93.6-100.0], 96.3% [78.7-99.5], and 95.5% [89.4-98.1] for WB bone SPECT/CT and 93.3% [77.9-99.2], 100.0% [95.8-100.0], 100.0 and 97.7% [91.8-99.4] for FCH PET/CT. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy of bone metastases between WB Bone SPECT/CT (AUC 0.824 [0.74-0.90]) and FCH PET/CT (AUC 0.829 [0.75-0.90],p = 0.41). Conclusion Despite good performances for the diagnosis of bone metastases in PC-BR, WB bone SPECT/CT does not provide additive diagnostic information over concomitant FCH PET/CT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available