Comparison of Oral and IV <SUP>18</SUP>F-NaF PET/CT Administration in the Assessment of Bone Metastases in Patients With Breast or Prostate Cancers
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
Autores
Citação
CLINICAL NUCLEAR MEDICINE, v.48, n.9, p.E413-E419, 2023
Resumo
PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare oral and IV administrations of F-18-NaF PET/CT for detection of suspicious bone metastatic lesions of breast and prostate cancers.Patients and MethodsThirty-six patients with breast (n = 23) or prostate (n = 13) cancers and high risk for bone metastases were prospectively evaluated. All patients underwent 2 PET/CT studies after IV and oral F-18-NaF administration within a 2 to 23 days interval between them. The maximum SUVs from the same suspicious lesions (& LE;5 index lesions per patient) in both studies were measured. The target-to-background ratio (TBR), defined as the relation between the lesion maximum SUV and the whole skeletal mean SUV, was calculated for each lesion. The TBRs in the same lesion calculated using the 2 administration routes were compared. The agreements between 2 physicians in the definition of the number of lesions in both studies were also assessed using weighted & kappa;.ResultsOne hundred thirty-four pairs of lesions were analyzed. There was no significant statistical difference between the median TBRs (P = 0.212) for IV (10.33) and oral (10.85). Excellent intraobserver agreement was observed between IV and oral routes: weighted & kappa; of 1.0 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.0) and 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.99) for physicians 1 and 2, respectively. The interobserver coefficients were 0.82 and 0.87 for ""oral versus oral"" and ""IV versus IV,"" respectively.Conclusions(18)F-NaF PET/CT studies using oral and IV routes present comparable performance; thus, it is possible to use oral route in patients with difficult venous access.
Palavras-chave
PET, CT, F-18-sodium fluoride, oral administration, bone metastases, agreement study
Referências
- Beheshti M, 2018, EUR J NUCL MED MOL I, V45, P322, DOI 10.1007/s00259-017-3874-2
- BLAND JM, 1986, LANCET, V1, P307, DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8
- BLAU M, 1972, Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, V2, P31, DOI 10.1016/S0001-2998(72)80005-9
- BLAU M, 1962, J NUCL MED, V3, P332
- Brenner AI, 2012, SEMIN NUCL MED, V42, P11, DOI 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2011.07.005
- Cicchetti D. V., 1971, American Journal of EEG Technology, V11, P101
- Doot RK, 2010, J NUCL MED, V51, P521, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.109.070052
- FLEISS JL, 1973, EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS, V33, P613, DOI 10.1177/001316447303300309
- Grant FD, 2008, J NUCL MED, V49, P68, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.106.037200
- HAWKINS RA, 1992, J NUCL MED, V33, P633
- Huang Z, 2007, J SPAT SCI, V52, P1, DOI 10.1080/14498596.2007.9635096
- JONES AE, 1973, RADIOLOGY, V107, P129, DOI 10.1148/107.1.129
- LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310
- Langsteger W, 2016, SEMIN NUCL MED, V46, P491, DOI 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2016.07.003
- Loening Andreas Markus, 2003, Mol Imaging, V2, P131, DOI 10.1162/153535003322556877
- MOON NF, 1968, J AMER MED ASSOC, V204, P974, DOI 10.1001/jama.204.11.974
- Parker C, 2020, ANN ONCOL, V31, P1119, DOI 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011
- SPENCER R, 1967, BRIT J RADIOL, V40, P641, DOI 10.1259/0007-1285-40-477-641
- Van den Wyngaert T, 2016, EUR J NUCL MED MOL I, V43, P1723, DOI 10.1007/s00259-016-3415-4
- Zacchi SR, 2016, CLIN NUCL MED, V41, P79, DOI 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001057
- Zacchi SR, 2013, CLIN NUCL MED, V38, P1012, DOI 10.1097/RLU.0000000000000250
- Zacho HD, 2020, J NUCL MED, V61, P344, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.119.232686