Prospective Comparison of 99mTc MDP Scintigraphy, Combined 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG PET/CT and Whole-Body MRI in Patients with Breast and Prostate Cancers.

We prospectively evaluated the combined (18)F-NaF/(18)F-FDG PET/CT in patients with breast and prostate cancers, and compared the results to (99m)Tc MDP bone scintigraphy (BS) and whole-body MRI (WBMRI).

30 patients (15 women with breast cancer and 15 men with prostate cancer) referred for standard of care BS were prospectively enrolled in this study. (18)F-NaF/(18)F-FDG PET/CT and WBMRI were performed following BS. WBMRI protocol consisted of both non-contrast enhanced and contrast enhanced sequences. Lesions detected with each test were tabulated and the results were compared.

For extra skeletal lesions, (18)F-/(18)F-FDG PET/CT and WBMRI had no statistically significant differences in sensitivity (92. 9% vs 92. 9%, P = 1. 00), PPV (81. 3% vs 86. 7%, P = 0. 68) and accuracy (76. 5% vs 82. 4%, P = 0. 56). However, (18)F-/(18)F-FDG PET/CT showed significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy than WBMRI (96. 2% vs 81. 4%, P

The (18)F NaF/(18)F FDG PET/CT is superior to WBMRI and (99m)Tc-MDP scintigraphy for evaluation of skeletal disease extent. Further, (18)F NaF/(18)F FDG PET/CT and WBMRI detected extra-skeletal disease that may change the management of these patients. The (18)F NaF/(18)F FDG PET/CT provide similar diagnostic ability with combination of WBMRI and BS in patients with breast and prostate cancers. Larger cohorts are needed in order to confirm these preliminary findings, ideally using the newly introduced simultaneous PET/MRI scanners.

Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2015 Sep 24 [Epub ahead of print]

Ryogo Minamimoto, Andreas Loening, Mehran Jamali, Amir Barkhodari, Camila Mosci, Tatianie Jackson, Piotr Obara, Valentina Taviani, Sanjiv S Gambhir, Shreyas Vasanawala, Andrei H Iagaru

Stanford University, United States;, Department of Radiology, Radiological Sciences Laboratory, Stanford University, United States;, Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging,, United States;, Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging,, United States;, Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging,, United States;, Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging,, United States;, Department of Radiology, Radiological Sciences Laboratory, Stanford University, United States;, Department of Radiology, Radiological Sciences Laboratory, Stanford University, United States;, Stanford University, United States;, Department of Radiology, Radiological Sciences Laboratory, Stanford University, United States;, Stanford University Medical Center, United States.

PubMed