Community Forum top_calendar.gif top_members.gif top_faq.gif top_search.gif top_home.gif    

Go Back   Community Forum > The Internet Medical Journal > News
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 30th, 2004, 18:27
sysadmin sysadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: 2001
Posts: 1,085
Bone Scans More Sensitive, PET Scans More Specific in Lung Cancer Metastases

This retrospective study evaluated 85 patients with lung cancer who underwent both FDG-PET and bone scans within three weeks of each other for initial staging or restaging. The number and sites of bony lesions on FDG-PET and bone scans were correlated. Concordant lesions between the two modalities were considered to be positive for malignancy; discordant lesions were compared with X-rays, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and/or follow-up findings. The mean follow-up interval was 7.9 months.

RESULTS: Bone scans were positive for lesions in 24 patients and negative in 61 patients while FDG-PET was positive for bony lesions in 17 patients and negative in 65 patients. FDG-PET was indeterminate for rib involvement in three patients having an underlying lung cancer, whom were evaluated separately. A total of 88 and 41 bony lesions were identified on bone scans and FDG-PET, respectively. Correlation of bone scans with other imaging modalities and clinical follow-up findings revealed a sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of 81%, 78%, 34%, and 93%, respectively and for FDG-PET 73% (P=0.81), 88% (P=0.03), 46% (P=0.5,) and 97% (P=0.04), respectively. Using bone scans, 10 patients were correctly diagnosed with bony metastases, 54 were correctly diagnosed free of bony metastases, 17 patients were falsely diagnosed with metastases, and metastases were missed in one patient. Using FDG-PET scans, eight patients were correctly diagnosed with bony metastases, 66 were correctly diagnosed free of bony metastases, seven patients were falsely diagnosed with metastases, and one patient had metastases which were missed. Of the three patients with lung cancer close to the chest wall in whom FDG-PET was indeterminate for rib involvement, the bone scans were truly positive for rib involvement in two of them, and truly negative in the remaining patient. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET scans demonstrated significantly higher specificity and negative predictive values than bone scans for evaluating bony metastases from lung cancer. On the other hand, bone scans are more sensitive with higher positive predictive values than FDG-PET scans, but the differences were not statistically significant.

COMMENT: the use of fluorine for PET imaging, instead of FDG makes more sense in terms of comparison with bone scanning.

PMID: 14499159 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=14499159

Mol Imaging Biol. 2003 Jan-Feb;5(1):26-31.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FLT More Specific Than FDG in the Workup of Lung Lesions Worrisome for Cancer sysadmin News 0 July 12th, 2004 07:24
PET Detects Unexpected Metastatic Disease in 11% of NSC Lung Cancer Patients sysadmin News 0 July 5th, 2003 08:04
Detection of Unexpected Extrathoracic Metastases in Lung Cancer by PET sysadmin News 0 July 4th, 2003 10:37
August 2002 sysadmin News 0 September 2nd, 2002 19:44
July 2002 sysadmin News 0 August 12th, 2002 19:08


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:54.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.



Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.  
- Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

We are committed to your good health. That means that while we provide editorial medical information, we must insist that you work with your own doctor in regards to your personal health issues. All content on Medjournal.Com is strictly editorial. It constitutes medical opinion, NOT ADVICE. We do not endorse or recommend the content of Medjournal.com or the sites that are linked FROM or TO Medjournal.com. Use common sense by consulting with your doctor before making any lifestyle changes or other medical decisions based on the content of these web pages. Medjournal.Com and the Internet Medical Journal shall not be held liable for any errors in content, advertising, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.