Seminars in Nuclear Medicine
Volume 39, Issue 6 , Pages 408-415 , November 2009

Breast Cancer: Role of SPECT and PET in Imaging Bone Metastases

  • Simona Ben-Haim, MD, DSc

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to Simona Ben-Haim, MD, DSc, Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospital NHS Trust, 235 Euston Road T5, London NW1 2BU, United Kingdom
    • ,
  • Ora Israel, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nuclear Medicine, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
    • The Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

References 

  1. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapacho M, et al (eds): SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2005. Bethesda, MD, National Cancer Institute. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2005/. Posted to the SEER web site 2008
  2. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2006. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2006;
  3. Coleman RE, Rubens RD. The clinical course of bone metastases from breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1987;55:61–66
  4. Cook GJ, Houston S, Rubens R, et al. Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: Differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:3375–3379
  5. Hamaoka T, Madewell JE, Podoloff DA, et al. Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;22:2924–2953
  6. Even-Sapir E. Imaging of malignant bone involvement by morphologic, scintigraphic and hybrid modalities. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1356–1367
  7. Blake GM, Park-Holohan SJ, Cook GJ, et al. Quantitative studiesof bone with the use of 18F-fluoride and 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate. Semin Nucl Med. 2001;31:28–49
  8. Tryciecky EW, Gottschalk A, Ludema K. Oncologic imaging: Interactions of nuclear medicine with CT and MRI using the one scan as the model. Semin Nucl Med. 1997;27:142–151
  9. Shie P, Cardarelli R, Brandon D, et al. Meta-analysis: Comparison of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2007;33:97–101
  10. Frank JA, Ling A, Patronas NJ, et al. Detection of malignant bone tumors: MR imaging vs scintigraphy. Am J Roentgenol. 1990;155:1043–1048
  11. Gosfield E, Alavi A, Kneeland B. Comparison of radionuclide bone scans and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting spinal metastases. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:2191–2198
  12. Schirrmeister H. Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by positron emission tomography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:669–676
  13. Coleman RE, Rubens RD, Fogelman I. Reappraisal of the baseline bone scan in breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 1988;29:1045–1049
  14. Yeh KA, Fortunato L, Ridge JA, et al. Routine bone scanning in patients with T1 and T2 breast cancer: A waste of money. Ann Surg Oncol. 1995;2:319–324
  15. Maffioli L, Florimonte L, Pagani L, et al. Breast cancer: Diagnostic and therapeutic options. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31(suppl 1):S143–S148
  16. Langster W, Heinish M, Fogelman I. The role of fluorodeoxyglucose, 18F-dihydroxyphenylalanine, 18F-choline and 18F-fluoride in bone imaging with emphasis on prostate and breast. Semin Nucl Med. 2006;36:73–92
  17. Coleman RE, Mashiter G, Whitaker KB, et al. Bone scan flare predicts successful systemic therapy for bone metastases. J Nucl Med. 1988;29:1354–1359
  18. Vogel CL, Schoenfelder J, Shemano I, et al. Worsening bone scan in the evaluation of antitumor response during hormonal therapy of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:1123–1128
  19. Mortimer JE, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA. Metabolic flare: Indicator of hormone responsiveness in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2797–2803
  20. Horger M, Bares R. The role of single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography in benign and malignant bone disease. Semin Nucl Med. 2006;36:286–294
  21. Yuh WTC, Zachar CK, Barloon TJ, et al. Vertebral compression fractures: Distinction between benign and malignant causes with MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;172:215–218
  22. Even-Sapir E, Martin RH, Barnes DC, et al. Role of SPECT in differentiating malignant from benign lesions in the lower thoracic and lumbar vertebrae. Radiology. 1993;187:193–198
  23. Savelli G, Maffioli L, Maccauro M, et al. Bone scintigraphy and the added value of SPECT (single photon emission tomography) in detecting skeletal lesions. Q J Nucl Med. 2001;45:27–37
  24. Gates GF. SPECT bone scanning of the spine. Semin Nucl Med. 1998;28:78–94
  25. Kosuda S, Kaji T, Yokohama H, et al. Does bone SPECT actually have lower sensitivity for detecting vertebral metastasis than MRI?. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:975–978
  26. Han LJ, Au-Yong TK, Tong WC, et al. Comparison of bone single-photon emission tomography and planar imaging in the detection of vertebral metastases in patients with back pain. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25:635–638
  27. Uematsu T, Yuen S, Yukisawa S, et al. Comparison of FDG PET and SPECT for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1266–1272
  28. Nakai T, Okuyama C, Kubota T, et al. Pitfalls of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic skeletal metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:1253–1258
  29. Even-Sapir E, Flusser G, Lerman H, et al. SPECT/multislice low-dose CT: A clinically relevant constituent in the imaging algorithm of non oncologic patients referred for bone scintigraphy. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:319–324
  30. Utsunomiya D, Shiraishi S, Imuta M, et al. Added value of SPECT/CT fusion in assessing suspected bone metastasis: Comparison with scintigraphy alone and nonfused scintigraphy and CT. Radiology. 2006;238:264–271
  31. Cook GJR, Fogelman I. The role of positron emission tomography in the management of bone metastases. Cancer Suppl. 2000;88:2927–2933
  32. Fogelman I, Cook G, Israel O, et al. Positron emission tomography and bone metastases. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:135–142
  33. Even-Sapir E, Metzer U, Flusser G, et al. Assessment of malignant skeletal disease: Initial experience with 18F-fluoride PET/CT and comparison between 18F-fluoride PET and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:272–278
  34. Schirmeister H, Guhlmann CA, Elsner K, et al. Planar bone imaging vs. 18F-PET in patients with cancer of the prostate, thyroid and lung. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1623–1629
  35. Schirmeister H, Guhlmann CA, Kotzerke J, et al. Early detection and accurate description of extent of metastatic bone disease in breast cancer with 18F-fluoride ion and positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2381–2389
  36. Du Y, Cullum I, Illidge TM, et al. Fusion of metabolic function and morphology: Sequential [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography studies yield new insights into the natural history of skeletal metastases in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3440–3447
  37. Ohta M, Tokuda Y, Suzuki Y, et al. Whole body PET for the evaluation of bony metastases in patients with breast cancer: Comparison with 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy. Nucl Med Commun. 2001;22:875–879
  38. Yang SN, Liang JA, Lin FJ, et al. Comparing whole body 18F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate bone scan to detect bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2002;128:325–328
  39. Gallowitsch H-J, Kresnik E, Gasser J, et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography in the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma (A comparison to conventional imaging). Invest Radiol. 2003;38:250–256
  40. Mahner S, Schirrmacher S, Brenner W, et al. Comparison between positron emission tomography using 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose, conventional imaging and computed tomography for staging of breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1249–1254
  41. Damle N, Bal C, Bandopadhyaya G, et al. Role of 18F fluoride PET/CT in the detection of bone metastases in breast cancer patients. (abstract) J Nucl Med. 2007;48(suppl 2):142P
  42. Stafford SE, Gralow JR, Schubert EK, et al. Use of serial FDG PET to measure the response of bone-dominant breast cancer to therapy. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:913–921
  43. Eubank WB, Mankoff D, Bhattacharya M, et al. Impact of FDG PET on defining the extent of disease and on the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:479–486
  44. Tateishi U, Gamez C, Dawood S, et al. Bone metastases in patients with metastatic breast cancer: Morphologic and metabolic monitoring of response to systemic therapy with integrated PET/CT. Radiology. 2008;47:189–196
  45. Israel O, Goldberg A, Nachtigal A, et al. FDG-PET and CT patterns of bone metastases and their relationship to previously administered anti-cancer therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:1280–1284

PII: S0001-2998(09)00041-5

doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2009.05.002

Seminars in Nuclear Medicine
Volume 39, Issue 6 , Pages 408-415 , November 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution