BackgroundDespite recent technological advances allowing for quantitative single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), quantitative SPECT has not been widely used in the clinical practice. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of quantitative SPECT for measuring metastatic bone uptake in breast and prostate cancer by comparing standard uptake values (SUVs) measured with 99mTc-HDP SPECT/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT.MethodsTwenty-six breast and 27 prostate cancer patients at high risk of bone metastases underwent both 99mTc-HDP SPECT/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT within 14 days of each other. The SPECT and PET data were reconstructed using ordered-subset expectation-maximization algorithms achieving quantitative images. Metastatic and benign skeletal lesions visible in both data sets were identified, and their maximum, peak, and mean SUVs (SUVmax, SUVpeak, and SUVmean) were determined. SUV ratios (SUVRs) between the lesions and adjacent normal appearing bone were also calculated. Linear regression was used to evaluate the correlations between the SUVs of SPECT and PET and Bland-Altman plots to evaluate the differences between the SUVs and SUVRs of SPECT and PET.ResultsA total of 231 skeletal lesions, 129 metastatic and 102 benign, were analyzed. All three SUV measures correlated very strongly between SPECT and PET (R2 ≥ 0.80, p < 0.001) when all lesions were included, and the PET SUVs were significantly higher than SPECT SUVs (p < 0.001). The median differences were 21%, 12%, and 19% for SUVmax, SUVpeak, and SUVmean, respectively. On the other hand, the SUVRs were similar between SPECT and PET with median differences of 2%, − 9%, and 2% for SUVRmax, SUVRpeak, and SUVRmean, respectively.ConclusionThe strong correlation between SUVs and similar SUVRs of 99mTc-HDP SPECT/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT demonstrate that SPECT is an applicable tool for clinical quantification of bone metabolism in osseous metastases in breast and prostate cancer patients.
Objective The aim of this study was to compare reprojected bone SPECT/CT (RBS) against planar bone scintigraphy (BS) in the detection of bone metastases in breast and prostate cancer patients. Methods Twenty-six breast and 105 prostate cancer patients with high risk for bone metastases underwent 99mTc-HMDP BS and whole-body SPECT/CT, 1.5-T whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI and 18F-NaF or 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT within two prospective clinical trials (NCT01339780 and NCT03537391). Consensus reading of all imaging modalities and follow-up data were used to define the reference standard diagnosis. The SPECT/CT data were reprojected into anterior and posterior views to produce RBS images. Both BS and RBS images were independently double read by two pairs of experienced nuclear medicine physicians. The findings were validated against the reference standard diagnosis and compared between BS and RBS on the patient, region and lesion levels. Results All metastatic patients detected by BS were also detected by RBS. In addition, three metastatic patients were missed by BS but detected by RBS. The average patient-level sensitivity of two readers for metastases was 75% for BS and 87% for RBS, and the corresponding specificity was 79% for BS and 39% for RBS. The average region-level sensitivity of two readers was 64% for BS and 69% for RBS, and the corresponding specificity was 96% for BS and 87% for RBS. Conclusion Whole-body bone SPECT/CT can be reprojected into more familiar anterior and posterior planar images with excellent sensitivity for bone metastases, making additional acquisition of planar BS unnecessary.
Background We evaluated the effects of acquisition time, energy window width, and matrix size on the image quality, quantitation, and diagnostic performance of whole-body 99mTc-HMDP SPECT/CT in the primary metastasis staging of prostate cancer. Methods Thirty prostate cancer patients underwent 99mTc-HMDP SPECT/CT from the top of the head to the mid-thigh using a Discovery NM/CT 670 CZT system with list-mode acquisition, 50-min acquisition time, 15% energy window width, and 128 × 128 matrix size. The acquired list-mode data were resampled to produce data sets with shorter acquisition times of 41, 38, 32, 26, 20, and 16 min, narrower energy windows of 10, 8, 6, and 4%, and a larger matrix size of 256 × 256. Images were qualitatively evaluated by three experienced nuclear medicine physicians and quantitatively evaluated by noise, lesion contrast and SUV measurements. Diagnostic performance was evaluated from the readings of two experienced nuclear medicine physicians in terms of patient-, region-, and lesion-level sensitivity and specificity. Results The originally acquired images had the best qualitative image quality and lowest noise. However, the acquisition time could be reduced to 38 min, the energy window narrowed to 8%, and the matrix size increased to 256 × 256 with still acceptable qualitative image quality. Lesion contrast and SUVs were not affected by changes in acquisition parameters. Acquisition time reduction had no effect on the diagnostic performance, as sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve were not significantly different between the 50-min and reduced acquisition time images. The average patient-level sensitivities of the two readers were 88, 92, 100, and 96% for the 50-, 32-, 26-, and 16-min images, respectively, and the corresponding specificities were 78, 84, 84, and 78%. The average region-level sensitivities of the two readers were 55, 58, 59, and 56% for the 50-, 32-, 26-, and 16-min images, respectively, and the corresponding specificities were 95, 98, 96, and 95%. The number of equivocal lesions tended to increase as the acquisition time decreased. Conclusion Whole-body 99mTc-HMDP SPECT/CT can be acquired using a general-purpose CZT system in less than 20 min without any loss in diagnostic performance in metastasis staging of high-risk prostate cancer patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.