4.2 Article

Diagnostic value of Thallium-201 scintigraphy in differentiating malignant bone tumors from benign bone lesions

Journal

ANNALS OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Volume 29, Issue 8, Pages 674-681

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12149-015-0990-6

Keywords

Thallium-201 scintigraphy; Malignant bone tumor; Benign bone tumor; Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis; Tumor-to-background contrast (TBC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective study aims to evaluate the diagnostic capacity of thallium-201 (201Tl) scintigraphy for differentiating malignant bone tumors from benign bone lesions. Between January 2006 and December 2012, 279 patients with bone lesions (51 malignant and 228 benign) underwent 201Tl scintigraphy before treatment. To evaluate 201Tl uptake, we investigated tumor-to-background contrast (TBC) as well as TBC washout rate (WR). The differences of TBC on early and delayed images and WR were estimated by the Mann-Whitney U test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to determine the cut-off TBC values for differentiating malignant bone tumors from benign bone lesions. There were statistically significant differences in median TBC between malignant tumors and benign lesions. These differences occurred for early imaging (1.57 vs. 0.09, p < 0.001) as well as for delayed imaging (0.83 vs. 0.07, p < 0.001). However, there was no statistical difference in WR between malignant tumors and benign lesions (44 vs. 43 %, NS). The chosen TBC cut-off value was 0.68 for early imaging and 0.38 for delayed imaging. Using these cut-off values, the prediction of malignancy had a 77 % sensitivity, 74 % specificity, and 75 % accuracy for early imaging and an 80 % sensitivity, 76 % specificity, and 77 % accuracy for delayed imaging. 201Tl scintigraphy may have the ability to distinguish malignant bone tumors from benign bone lesions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available