Advertisement

18F-NaF-PET/CT for the detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies

  • Sara Sheikhbahaei
  • Krystyna M. Jones
  • Rudolf A. Werner
  • Roberto A. Salas-Fragomeni
  • Charles V. Marcus
  • Takahiro Higuchi
  • Steven P. Rowe
  • Lilja B. Solnes
  • Mehrbod S. JavadiEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

This meta-analysis aims to establish the diagnostic performance of 18F-NaF-PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer patients. The performance of 18F-NaF-PET/CT was compared with other imaging techniques in the same cohort of patients.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in PubMed/Medline and EMBASE (last Updated, September 28, 2018). Studies with histopathology confirmation and/or clinical/imaging follow-up as reference standard were eligible for inclusion.

Results

A total of 14 studies were included. Twelve studies including 507 patients provided per-patient basis information. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 18F-NaF-PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases were 0.98 (95% CI 0.95–0.99), 0.90 (95% CI 0.86–0.93), 123.2 and 0.97, respectively. Seven studies provided the lesion-based accuracy information of 1812 lesions identified on 18F-NaF-PET/CT with the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and AUC of 0.97 (95% CI 0.95–0.98), 0.84 (95% CI 0.81–0.87), 206.8 and 0.97, respectively. The overall diagnostic performance of 18F-NaF-PET/CT is superior to 99mTc-bone scintigraphy (AUC 0.842; P < 0.001; four studies) and 99mTc-SPECT (AUC 0.896; P < 0.001, four studies). Compared to 18F NaF-PET/CT, whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was shown to have lower sensitivity (0.83, 95% CI 0.68–0.93), with no significant difference in the overall performance (AUC 0.947; P = 0.18, four studies).

Conclusion

18F-NaF-PET/CT has excellent diagnostic performance in the detection of bone metastases in staging and restaging of high-risk prostate cancer patients. The performance of 18F-NaF-PET/CT is superior to 99mTc bone scintigraphy and SPECT, and comparable to DWI–MRI.

Keywords

Prostate cancer 18F-NaF-PET/CT Bone metastases 

Notes

Funding

None.

Supplementary material

12149_2019_1343_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A, et al. The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:505–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beheshti M, Langsteger W, Fogelman I. Prostate cancer: role of SPECT and PET in imaging bone metastases. Semin Nucl Med. 2009;39:396–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azad GK, Taylor B, Rubello D, Colletti PM, Goh V, Cook GJ. Molecular and functional imaging of bone metastases in breast and prostate cancers: an overview. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:e44–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kulshrestha RK, Vinjamuri S, England A, Nightingale J, Hogg P. The role of 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT bone scans in the diagnosis of metastatic bone disease from breast and prostate cancer. J Nucl Med Technol. 2016;44:217–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bastawrous S, Bhargava P, Behnia F, Djang DS, Haseley DR. Newer PET application with an old tracer: role of 18F-NaF skeletal PET/CT in oncologic practice. Radiographics. 2014;34:1295–316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jambor I, Kuisma A, Ramadan S, et al. Prospective evaluation of planar bone scintigraphy, SPECT, SPECT/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT and whole body 1.5T MRI, including DWI, for the detection of bone metastases in high risk breast and prostate cancer patients: SKELETA clinical trial. Acta Oncol. 2015;55:59–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damle NA, Bal C, Bandopadhyaya GP, et al. The role of 18F-fluoride PET-CT in the detection of bone metastases in patients with breast, lung and prostate carcinoma: a comparison with FDG PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scan. Jpn J Radiol. 2013;31:262–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jadvar H, Desai B, Ji L, et al. Prospective evaluation of 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG PET/CT in detection of occult metastatic disease in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:637–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iagaru A, Mittra E, Dick DW, Gambhir SS. Prospective evaluation of (99 m)Tc MDP scintigraphy, (18)F NaF PET/CT, and (18)F FDG PET/CT for detection of skeletal metastases. Mol Imaging Biol. 2012;14:252–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mosavi F, Johansson S, Sandberg DT, Turesson I, Sorensen J, Ahlstrom H. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI compared with (18)F-NaF PET/CT for detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:1114–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Withofs N, Grayet B, Tancredi T, et al. (1)(8)F-fluoride PET/CT for assessing bone involvement in prostate and breast cancers. Nucl Med Commun. 2011;32:168–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langsteger W, Balogova S, Huchet V, et al. Fluorocholine (18F) and sodium fluoride (18F) PET/CT in the detection of prostate cancer: prospective comparison of diagnostic performance determined by masked reading. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;55:448–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, Lievshitz G, Lerman H, Leibovitch I. The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:287–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poulsen MH, Petersen H, Hoilund-Carlsen PF, et al. Spine metastases in prostate cancer: comparison of technetium-99m-MDP whole-body bone scintigraphy, [(18) F]choline positron emission tomography(PET)/computed tomography (CT) and [(18) F]NaF PET/CT. BJU Int. 2014;114:818–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rao L, Zong Z, Chen Z, et al. 18F-Labeled NaF PET-CT in detection of bone metastases in patients with preoperative lung cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e3490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gerety EL, Lawrence EM, Wason J, et al. Prospective study evaluating the relative sensitivity of 18F-NaF PET/CT for detecting skeletal metastases from renal cell carcinoma in comparison to multidetector CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy, using an adaptive trial design. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:2113–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dyrberg E, Hendel HW, Huynh THV, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in comparison with 18F-fluoride-PET/CT and whole-body MRI for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(3):1221–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zacho HD, Nielsen JB, Afshar-Oromieh A, et al. Prospective comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT, (18)F-sodium fluoride PET/CT and diffusion weighted-MRI at for the detection of bone metastases in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1884–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Capitanio S, Bongioanni F, Piccardo A, et al. Comparisons between glucose analogue 2-deoxy-2-((18)F)fluoro-D-glucose and (18)F-sodium fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography in breast cancer patients with bone lesions. World J Radiol. 2016;8:200–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shen CT, Qiu ZL, Han TT, Luo QY. Performance of 18F-fluoride PET or PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases: a meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:103–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tateishi U, Morita S, Taguri M, et al. A meta-analysis of (18)F-Fluoride positron emission tomography for assessment of metastatic bone tumor. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24:523–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hillner BE, Hanna L, Makineni R, et al. Intended versus inferred treatment after (18)F-fluoride PET performed for evaluation of osseous metastatic disease in the national oncologic PET registry. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:421–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gareen IF, Hillner BE, Hanna L, et al. Hospice admission and survival after (18)F-fluoride PET performed for evaluation of osseous metastatic disease in the national oncologic PET registry. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:427–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Hanna L, et al. Impact of (18)F-fluoride PET on intended management of patients with cancers other than prostate cancer: results from the national oncologic PET registry. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1054–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9 (W264).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beheshti M, Vali R, Waldenberger P, et al. Detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer by 18F fluorocholine and 18F fluoride PET-CT: a comparative study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1766–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2002;21:1525–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    von Hippel PT. The heterogeneity statistic I(2) can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323:157–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wondergem M, van der Zant FM, Knol RJJ, et al. (99 m)Tc-HDP bone scintigraphy and (18)F-sodiumfluoride PET/CT in primary staging of patients with prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2018;36:27–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fonager RF, Zacho HD, Langkilde NC, et al. Diagnostic test accuracy study of (18)F-sodium fluoride PET/CT, (99 m)Tc-labelled diphosphonate SPECT/CT, and planar bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in newly diagnosed, high-risk prostate cancer. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;7:218–27.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bortot DC, Amorim BJ, Oki GC, et al. (1)(8)F-Fluoride PET/CT is highly effective for excluding bone metastases even in patients with equivocal bone scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1730–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Im H-J, Ibrahim N, Perk T, Jeraj R, Liu G, Cho S, Perlman S. Diagnostic strategy of 18F-NaF (NaF) PET/CT for inconclusive lesions in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016 (conference abstract).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jacobs MA, Macura KJ, Zaheer A, et al. Multiparametric whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging and ADC mapping for the identification of visceral and osseous metastases from solid tumors. Acad Radiol. 2018;25:1405–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Padhani AR, Lecouvet FE, Tunariu N, et al. METastasis reporting and data system for prostate cancer: practical guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging-based evaluations of multiorgan involvement in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71:81–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Minamimoto R, Loening A, Jamali M, et al. Prospective comparison of 99mTc-MDP scintigraphy, combined 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG PET/CT, and whole-body MRI in patients with breast and prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1862–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Harmon SA, Bergvall E, Mena E, et al. A prospective comparison of 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT and PSMA-targeted 18F-DCFBC PET/CT in metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(11):1665–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Uprimny C, Svirydenka A, Fritz J, et al. Comparison of [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with [(18)F]NaF PET/CT in the evaluation of bone metastases in metastatic prostate cancer patients prior to radionuclide therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1873–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Hanna L, Duan F, Shields AF, Coleman RE. Impact of 18F-fluoride PET in patients with known prostate cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:574–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Sheikhbahaei
    • 1
  • Krystyna M. Jones
    • 1
  • Rudolf A. Werner
    • 2
  • Roberto A. Salas-Fragomeni
    • 1
  • Charles V. Marcus
    • 1
  • Takahiro Higuchi
    • 2
  • Steven P. Rowe
    • 1
  • Lilja B. Solnes
    • 1
  • Mehrbod S. Javadi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological ScienceJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital WuerzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations