A meta-analysis of 18F-Fluoride positron emission tomography for assessment of metastatic bone tumor

Abstract

(18)F-Fluoride PET or PET/CT has excellent diagnostic performance for the detection of metastatic bone tumor, but the estimated effective dose and average cost-effective ratio are at a disadvantage compared with BS planar or BS planar and SPECT.

PET/CT with Sodium 18F-Fluoride for Management of Patients with Prostate Cancer

“…A meta-analysis comparing sodium 18 Ffluoride with 99m Tc-diphosphonate was published in 2010 by Tateishi et al (6). In a patient-based analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of sodium 18 F-fluoride in 10 studies were 96% and 98%, respectively, whereas the pooled sensitivity and specificity of 99m Tc-diphosphonate planar, or planar plus SPECT, bone scanning in 8 studies were 57% and 98%, respectively.…”

Critical considerations on the combined use of 18F-FDG and 18F-fluoride for PET assessment of metastatic bone disease

“…However, there are limited data in the literature evaluating its diagnostic performance. There are a few studies that examined the performance of 18 F-fluoride PET or PET/CT in identifying osseous metastases and reported excellent results [2,14,15]. However, we noticed that these studies had very small sample size and most studies lacked histological confirmation and direct comparison with whole-body MRI.…”

“…Tc-diphosphonate scintigraphy [1,2]. Apparently, it seems an attractive approach to combine 18 F-fluoride PET (which has high sensitivity for the detection of osseous metastasis) with 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET (which has been established as the single most important tumor imaging modality).…”

“…Again, in most cases, additional bone scintigraphy/ 18 F-fluoride PET is not indicated if 18 F-FDG PET/CT is performed, while for prostate cancer, 18 F-FDG PET/CT is not indicated according to current guidelines. Besides, a recent meta-analysis comparing the cost-effectiveness between 18 F-fluoride PET or PET/CT versus planar or single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) bone scan failed to demonstrate any cost-effective advantage for 18 F-fluoride PET or PET/CT in the assessment of metastatic bone lesions [2].…”

Impact of Nonosseous Findings on 18F-NaF PET/CT in a Patient with Ductal Breast Carcinoma

“…There is renewed clinical interest in the use of 18 F-NaF since prior technical and logistic limitations to its routine use are no longer present as the demand for 18 F-FDG promotes commercial production and delivery of 18 F-NaF. Studies have shown that 18 F-NaF PET produces images with higher sensitivity and specificity than 99m Tcbased bone scans; however, with the increasing use of 18 FNaF PET/CT in routine clinical practice for skeletal imaging in oncology [2,3], nonosseous uptake is likely to be more frequently encountered. In our case, 18 F-NaF PET/CT was Fig.…”